PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Electricity Disconnections

Mr. Ground: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairmen of the regional electricity companies to discuss levels of disconnection for debt.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I am delighted that the number of disconnections for debt has continued to fall. In 1991, the figure for England and Wales was less than a third of what it was 10 years ago.

Mr. Ground: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is it right to see in the big reduction in disconnections signs of a different attitude on the part of the electricity companies to their customers and signs of better management since the companies were privatised, and is there scope for further improvement in this respect?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, the sharpest reduction in disconnections for debt has occurred since the companies were put into the private sector. I believe that they are now closer to their customers and more able to cater for the needs of their customers, including those who fall behind with their payments. I look forward to further reductions in unnecessary disconnections and I know that that is also the desire of the independent electricity regulator.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The reason why there are fewer disconnections is that the electricity companies have introduced card meters, so that people cut themselves off rather than having to be cut off by the electricity companies. Moreover, there is an absence of facilities for obtaining cards for the meters, so that many people who have to use them have to spend a considerable amount of money on travelling to get hold of cards. As the meters are now in operation, will the Minister take action to ensure that dispenser facilities are more widely available?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The installation of pre-payment meters is one reason why the number of disconnections has fallen, but more important is the fact that the regional electricity companies, under the terms of their licence, have to approve a code of conduct with the Office of Electricity Regulation and must offer customers who are in genuine difficulties a payment plan so that debt can be paid off over a period. If customers agree a payment plan, they will not he disconnected. That is a very much better arrangement than that which pertained more than 10 years ago, when a

state-controlled monopoly was only too ready to disconnect customers without agreeing such arrangements.

Mr. Dobson: What are the prospects of disconnection for industrial customers in the coming year if they cannot afford to pay the exorbitant increases that the electricity companies are seeking from them? For instance, Fields Packaging of Bradford has been asked to pay 30 per cent. more, and Ibstock Brick in Leicestershire has been asked to pay between 20 and 30 per cent. more. How can the Minister or the companies justify increases of five to seven times the rate of inflation?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We are anxious that all industrial customers should have access to competitively priced electricity and I am pleased to say that an independent survey showed that in the first year after privatisation three quarters of those customers experienced at least a 10 per cent. reduction in their bills. Any subsequent increases should be seen in that context. Moreover, it should be an embarrassment to the hon. Gentlemen to be reminded that under the last Labour Government prices for domestic customers rose by 22 per cent. in real terms. That was a scandalous neglect of the interests of those customers and it will not be repeated under this Government.

Coal Prices

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the discussions taking place in the European Community about setting an EC-wide reference price for the cost of coal.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Wakeham): No, Sir, because there are no such discussions. The Commission has made it clear that it has no proposals for guide prices on coal contracts or for Community subsidies for coal production. Its ideas on "reference prices" are aimed at reducing the amounts of aid for coal production that member states may give to their industries.

Mr. Williams: Will the Minister confirm that, at about £42 a tonne, the average price of British coal is well below that of west German coal?

Dr. Kim Howells: Which costs two or three times as much.

Mr. Williams: That is right—two or three times as much. As Europe moves to become a single market, does it make any sense that Britain should be closing coal mines which are producing coal far cheaper than those in west Germany? Why are the Government so intent on destroying the industry through imports, through the dash for gas, and through their privatisation proposals? Would it not make more sense to have a moratorium on pit closures in the interests of jobs, the balance of payments and European energy conservation?

Mr. Wakeham: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that British coal is the cheapest in western Europe, but it is certainly not cheaper than coal from the United States or Australia and it is still uncompetitive in world terms. However, the next coal contracts will be at competitive rates and I believe that they will be satisfactory for British Coal.

Sir John Hannam: Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a proposal about coal imports would be in direct conflict with the objectives of GATT and of free trade and would also result in the removal of the need for competitiveness in British Coal, which would work to the disadvantage of the consumer?

Mr. Wakeham: I agree with my hon. Friend. I do not believe that those questions have been properly thought through. There are questions about our international obligations to GATT and to the Community. There are also implications for the steel industry and, as my hon. Friend pointed out, there are implications for electricity consumers. It is not in the long-term interests of the British coal industry not to become efficient and competitive.

Mr. Redmond: If the Secretary of State wishes to be believed at the Dispatch Box, he must honour what he says at the Dispatch Box. During the last Energy Question Time, more than a fortnight ago, he promised to write to me but he has failed to do so. If he makes statements from the Dispatch Box, he should be a man of honour and honour his promises.

Mr. Wakeham: I have to say that I have no idea what the hon. Gentleman is talking about.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the interests of my coal mining constituents would best be served by long-term contracts with the generators, which the British coal industry is well placed to secure and which the generators should welcome, and not by market rigging by Labour politicians posing as experts?

Mr. Wakeham: I agree with my hon. Friend. British Coal is in a position to sign long-term contracts with the generators, which will be very much in the interests of British Coal and the electricity consumers.

Mr. Barron: If the Secretary of State regards protecting the British coal industry and, therefore, the nation from the fluctuation in world prices as rigging the market, will he explain why he has done exactly that by rigging the market for nuclear electricity in this country?

Mr. Wakeham: The arguments for nuclear electricity were different—[interruption.] Oh, yes. We argued, rightly, that we believed in a diversity of supply and we wanted to ensure that that diversity of supply was available. We believe that British Coal can achieve a significant share of the coal market for generation in the new contracts which begin in 1993, and we believe that it will be able to achieve that at competitive prices.

Unleaded Petrol

Mr. Hague: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the current level of unleaded petrol sales in the United Kingdom; and what comparable figures he has for EC member states.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Colin Moynihan): Unleaded petrol sales in the United Kingdom currently account for nearly 44 per cent. of all petrol sales. The United Kingdom Petroleum Industry Association estimates that in 1990 the market share of unleaded petrol in other European Community countries was as follows: unified Germany 71 per cent., Denmark 58 per cent., Netherlands 49 per cent., Luxembourg 32 per

cent., Belgium 27 per cent., Eire 20 per cent., France 14 per cent., Italy 5 per cent., Greece 3 per cent., Spain 1 per cent., Portugal 1 per cent. The comparable United Kingdom figure for this period was 34 per cent.

Mr. Hague: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures reflect a sharp improvement in this country over the past few years and scope for some of our Community partners to do more to encourage unleaded petrol sales? Does my hon. Friend expect that unleaded petrol sales in Scotland would improve if the petroleum engineering directorate were relocated to Aberdeen?

Mr. Moynihan: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to announce today that he is appointing Ernst and Young management consultants to undertake an independent study of the case for and against relocating the Department of Energy's petroleum engineering directorate to Aberdeen. Whatever the findings on relocation, there may well be an impact on the level of unleaded petrol sales in Scotland and thus in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Simon Hughes: As the Minister's first answer made it clear that a price differential has been a major cause of the substantial increase in sales of unleaded petrol, and as the Secretary of State is on record as saying that the market has a role to play in cutting the use of petrol across the market in the United Kingdom, by what figures does the Department currently estimate that petrol prices will increase over the next few years?

Mr. Moynihan: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are not in a position to predict what oil prices or, through oil prices, petrol prices will be over the next few years. On the hon. Gentleman's first point, there is no doubt that the duty differential in favour of unleaded petrol has been an important catalyst for the increased take-up of unleaded petrol, but the need for further changes to the duty differential is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

Mr. Mans: Although those figures are very encouraging, does my hon. Friend agree that an awful lot of older vehicles could be converted to run on unleaded petrol but that people are ignorant of that fact? Will my hon. Friend therefore consult his colleagues at the Department of Transport to see whether it is possible for notices to be sent with car tax reminders, indicating whether certain vehicles could be easily converted to run on unleaded petrol?

Mr. Moynihan: My hon. Friend makes a very imaginative proposal. I will certainly pass it on to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. My hon. Friend will know that more than 200,000 free information booklets have already been distributed, which answer questions about unleaded fuel and provide contact numbers for the main car manufacturers. Seven out of 10 cars on the road are capable of using unleaded petrol, but we need to press on and go further.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Having admitted that the lower duty on unleaded petrol has helped to promote its use, has the Minister had any discussions with the Treasury about introducing such a lower level of duty for the cleaner diesel fuels which are now available, especially as BP is one of the pioneers in that respect?

Mr. Moynihan: The answer is no—not least because diesel prices are determined by the market. I accept that, at present, they are high—only slightly below unleaded petrol prices—but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that is because the demand for gas oil, which is equivalent to diesel, is high at this time of year as it is used for heating and high demand tends to push up prices. However, I expect the differential between unleaded and diesel to revert to the norm in the summer months.

Coal Imports

Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportions of coal consumed in Britain was from (a) imports and (b) domestic production in 1979 and 1991; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Wakeham: In 1979, imports accounted for 4 per cent. and domestic production for 96 per cent. of United Kingdom coal consumption. The corresponding figures for 1991 were 17 per cent. for imports and 83 per cent. for domestic production.

Mr. Hain: Since 1979, when the Government came to power, coal imports have increased from 4 million tonnes to 19 millions tonnes, an increase of 346 per cent., which has had the effect of wiping out the coal fields of south Wales, damaging our balance of payments, costing the taxpayer £8,500 for every one of the tens of thousands of unemployed miners, and making us dreadfully dependent on foreign supplies. Does the Secretary of State appreciate that that is economic lunacy of the highest order, or is he just plain thick?

Mr. Wakeham: No. The answer is that expensive electricity is very bad for British industry. The reason why coal imports have been increasing has been the failure of British Coal to be competitive enough. That is not through lack of support by this Government, who have put £17 billion into the coal industry since 1979. I am pleased to say that there are now signs—after the improvement in recent years and with further improvements—that British Coal will be able to secure good contracts for the future.

Mr. Rost: How is British Coal expected to compete in the privatised electricity market when the duopoly is able to close down coal-fired power stations even though they can produce cheaper electricty than the new gas turbine power stations, because the duopoly is able to pass the extra costs to consumers? Should not the regulator ensure that the extra costs for higher cost plant are not passed to consumers? Should not coal-fired power stations, which could be competitive and which the duopoly rejects, be offered for sale so that continuing competition can develop?

Mr. Wakeham: Some of those questions are for the regulator. I remind my hon. Friend that the regional electricity companies have an obligation to undertake economic purchasing. If, as my hon. Friend suggests, there is cheaper electricity to be obtained from coal-fired power stations than from gas-fired power stations, I would expect them to use the electricity from coal-fired stations, in accordance with their licence obligations.

Mr. Eadie: Does the Secretary of State realise that his comments have failed to persuade the House that the policy that he and the Government are operating is right?

It is a gross slander on the miners to talk about the cost of coal and about productivity when miners in Britain are achieving record productivity figures. How can the right hon. Gentleman stand at the Dispatch Box and seek to justify the untrammelled entry of coal imports into Britain, which is flinging thousands of miners out of work and at the same time digging a hole for the economic morass in our balance of payments?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's analysis. The threat to coal jobs has been much more from gas than from imported coal. The only way to deal with that is to make coal a competitive source of fuel and the first choice for the generators. It is possible for British Coal to achieve those contracts and that is what I look forward to seeing.

Independent Electricity Generation

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the number of new independent electricity generating units since privatisation.

Mr. Wakeham: The Government welcome the strong growth of competition in generation. The first project to be developed since privatisation, at Roosecote, is already supplying electricity to the grid. Four other independent generating stations are under construction and the Government are aware of about 30 other potential independent projects.

Mrs. Gorman: I thank my right hon. Friend. I am delighted with the progress that we are making in finding new sources of electricity generation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should welcome the decision by the European Commission to remove its restriction on gas-fired generating stations? Does he agree that gas is better not only because it is transported through its own pipelines and therefore takes transport off the road, but because it is green-clean and thermally more efficient? In my constituency it has stimulated the introduction of three new generating plants, two of them based at oil terminals at Shell haven, where the oil industry welcomes the progress of moves towards gas and is not mounting a rearguard action against it, as the coal industry seems to be doing.

Mr. Wakeham: I welcome the introduction of gas as a fuel for power generation, but it must remain competitive with coal: that will produce the best prices for electricity consumers.

Mr. Lofthouse: The Secretary of State will undoubtedly be aware that Mr. Malcolm Edwards told the Select Committee on Energy last week that the cost of gas for generation of electricity would be about 2·7p per kilowatt hour compared with 2·2p for coal. That was similar to the evidence that the Secretary of State gave some weeks ago. To enable the House and the country to clear the matter up, will the Secretary of State tell us the correct figure? Will he consider bringing the regulator's review of purchasing policy forward from 1993?

Mr. Wakeham: I have been in the House long enough to know that it is not appropriate for me to comment on evidence given to a Select Committee until that Committee has reported. However, I am prepared to confirm that in


my evidence to the Select Committee I made it clear that the regional electricity companies were obliged to purchase the most economic electricity on the market. If that be coal-fired generation, so much the better.

Mr. Hind: My right hon. Friend will be aware of widespread concern in the community that whatever fuel is chosen by the electricity producers, it should be the cleanest fuel of all. Environmental considerations must play a part. If coal is to be the choice, does my right hon. Friend agree that scrubbers are essential at coal-fired power stations and the type of coal put into them must be low in sulphur dioxide emissions?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Gas is environmentally helpful in achieving the Government's target of stabilising carbon dioxide emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2005. The Opposition policy of seeking to stabilise emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000, while keeping the coal industry at its existing size, stopping the use of gas and phasing out nuclear electricity, is the mathematics of Bedlam—it just does not add up.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Secretary of State name to the House any allegedly independent gas-fired generating projects which do not involve investment from regional electricity companies? For example, is it not true that the Roosecote project has received a substantial amount of capital from NORWEB but that the deal has been kept secret? No one knows how big the contribution was and the price paid for the electricity is being kept secret. Should it not be transparent?

Mr. Wakeham: I believe that contracts between generators and regional electricity companies are commercially confidential, and there is no reason why they should not be—

Mr. Barron: The regulator must know the difference in price.

Mr. Wakeham: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That information must be available to the regulator, and it is. Secondly, the licensing obligations of regional electricity companies apply to power that they buy from their affiliates as well as to power that they buy from other people.

Energy Efficiency Office

Mr. Gwilym Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what the budget for the Energy Efficiency Office will be in 1992–93; and what was the comparable figure for 1979–80.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The budget for the Energy Efficiency Office in 1992–93 will be £59 million, an increase of 40 per cent. on this year's budget. The comparable figure for expenditure in 1979–80 was £2·4 million.

Mr. Jones: What action is being taken by South Wales Electricity and the other companies on that most important aspect of energy efficiency?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Under the terms of their licences, the newly privatised regional electricity companies must take steps to promote the efficient use of their fuels. In addition, the regulators of both the electricity and gas industries are examining with the industries scope for further funding of energy efficiency measures, funded in

part under the price formula. Since privatisation there has been a transformation in the attitude and work of those energy companies towards promoting energy efficiency as well as selling their product.

Dr. Kim Howells: Does the Minister agree that no matter what progress is made in energy efficiency—in Wales or in the west country, for example—it could all come to nothing if the Government press ahead and force British Gas to start up a new company for the transportation of gas through its pipelines? It would mean that British Gas would put a mileage rate on the transportation of gas so that regions such as Wales will suffer from higher gas prices, which will offset anything that we may do to achieve efficiency.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Those are matters for the regulators of the industry concerned, who have an explicit duty to promote competition in the industries and to safeguard the interests of consumers. Before the industries were privatised, there was no comparable safeguard for the consumer. It has come about entirely as a result of privatisation.

Energy Prices

Mr. Jessel: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy by how much the level of prices for fuel, light and power has changed in real terms since 1986.

Mr. Moynihan: The cost of fuel, light and power to the domestic sector is estimated to have fallen by 8 per cent. in real terms between 1986 and 1991. For the industrial sector, it is estimated that the cost has fallen by more than 25 per cent. in real terms during the same period.

Mr. Jessel: Is not that a tremendously impressive achievement? It is no wonder that we receive so few complaining letters about electricity prices these days. Can my hon. Friend say how far that is due to privatisation?

Mr. Moynihan: I believe that it is due both to privatisation and to the benefits of restructuring, especially in the electricity industry. It is evident that the emergence of competition in both generation and supply has had a significant impact on prices.

Mr. Tony Banks: Why is it, then, that so many of our constituents are coming to advice surgeries about bills that they cannot afford to pay? Is not it now time that the Minister decided that the standing charges, which are an unacceptable imposition, particularly on the elderly, should be abolished? Why have the Government not done something about that?

Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman will be able to tell his constituents, as I do mine, that domestic users and other small users of electricity are protected for the first time, as a result of the Government's initiative, by price controls against unjustified price increases.

Mr. Rathbone: Can my hon. Friend say what the price increases are likely to be in the forthcoming year?

Mr. Moynihan: The protection offered by electricity price controls against unjustified increases will limit increases up to April 1992 to the level of inflation as measured from October to October, subject to unforeseen circumstances. It is important that those controls are seen in a three-year context.

Mineworkers (Redundancy Pay)

Mr. Haynes: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal to discuss redundancy payments for mineworkers.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We meet the chairman of British Coal on a regular basis to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

Mr. Haynes: I am not surprised that the Minister has not mentioned redundancy payments for miners when they are closing pits willy-nilly. You know, Mr. Speaker, they would complain like billy-o on the Treasury Bench if we docked their redundancy payments. Yet they are using blackmail on miners to vote to close pits earlier than they year that had been decided on so that they can close the pit down and they have cut the redundancy payments for miners. They should be ashamed of themselves. What are they going to do about it?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly, he suggested that redundancy pay for displaced miners was excessively generous. That is a curious message from the Labour party, although it is true that Opposition this year voted against the Coal Industry Bill, which provides for the continuation of those generous payments to redundant miners. Miners all over the country will know that the Labour party voted against those terms.

Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Due to the unsatisfactory reply from the Minister, I shall apply for an Adjournment debate.

British Coal (Exchequer Subvention)

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the total subvention to British Coal from the Exchequer over the past five years.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The total amount of Government grant that has been made available to British Coal over the past five financial years is £8·5 billion.

Mr. Marshall: Does not that figure underline the Government's commitment to the coal mining industry? Would my hon. Friend care to hazard a guess about how many fewer jobs there would be in that industry if that money had not been given? Does he agree that that money underlines the huge benefits to the taxpayer that will come from the privatisation of the industry, to which the Labour party is opposed?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is right to point out that, in the past five years and beyond, the taxpayer has not been ungenerous in giving money to the coal industry. In return, we expect the industry to fight for its share of the electricity market by improved productivity. I am delighted at the progress that the industry has made with Government assistance.

Mr. Hardy: The Minister has accepted that investment by the state has assisted miners to achieve records of productivity unmatched by the rest of British industry. However, despite that achievement in the national interest, the Government have sat idly by while the electricity supply industry has disregarded that massive increase in productivity. Not only have the Government disregarded the electricity supply industry's disdain for that achievement, but they have sat idly by and watched

collieries close which, in the past five years, have taken up a large part of that sum of money about which the Minister boasted just a moment ago.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The provision of £8·5 billion of grant aid hardly amounts to standing idly by. The mining industry knows that its long-term security comes only from selling its product to customers at prices they can afford. If we insisted on electricity generators buying expensive coal, that would be bad news for domestic electricity customers and it would cause job losses in the rest of British industry.

THORP

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy at current trends, how much plutonium he expects the thermal oxide reprocessing plant to have produced by the year 2000.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: BNFL estimates that, by the year 2000, some 30 tonnes of plutonium should have been recovered during reprocessing in THORP.

Mr. Cohen: Is not THORP about to become the principal producer of plutonium for proliferators in the world? Will it not produce the equivalent of about a quarter of the nuclear arsenals of both the Soviet Union and the United States at their peak by the year 2000? Is not THORP capable of destroying the world, and should not the Minister show some courage as well as some sense and phase out plutonium production?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The reprocessing does not create plutonium but recovers it so that it can be recycled' as a source of energy. The hon. Gentleman may know that a tonne of plutonium is equivalent, in energy terms, to about 3£5 million tonnes of coal. It therefore makes sense to recover that element for possible future use in civil reactors or, one day, in the fast reactors.

Pit Closures

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent meetings he has had with the National Union of Mineworkers to discuss the proposed pit closures; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Wakeham: I have had no recent meetings with the National Union of Mineworkers to discuss pit closures.

Mr. Skinner: Does the Minister agree that 90 million tonnes of imported coal last year is equivalent to about 20 pit closures involving 20,000 men? Compared with how the German coal industry is subsidised—its coal is produced at no less than £89 a tonne compared with £42 a tonne for deep-mined coal in Britain—how can we say that the industry is on a level playing field in Europe? What guarantees do we have that some of that imported coal is not part of the German coal laundered in Rotterdam with coal from other countries? Does that mean that we are helping to subsidise the German coal industry while shutting pits in this country and throwing people out of work? Those people then receive the dole, which is taxpayers' money. The whole matter needs to be brought to an end immediately.

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman put his finger on the cause of the problem—the excessive subsidies in


Germany. I want those subsidies to be phased down by the Community, and I also want to encourage British coal to be exported to Germany if that is a way to deal with the problem.

Mr. Roger King: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread confusion among Opposition Members—particularly the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), shown by his attitude towards the importation of coal—and the great conflict within the Labour party about how to handle the matter? Will my right hon. Friend comment on the Labour party's idea on the possibility of stuffing the generating board with political satraps to bring salvation to its energy policy?

Mr. Wakeham: From time to time I read about the views of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, (Mr. Dobson) but I was also interested to read over my cornflakes on Saturday morning the Labour party briefing to the effect that we were not to take the hon. Gentleman too seriously.

Mr. John Evans: Surely the Secretary of State agrees that it is economic madness to switch electricity generation from coal to gas, close scores of collieries and throw thousands of miners on to the dole? Does not the industry need a long-term agreement to keep collieries like Parkside in my constituency, the very last colliery in north-west England, in existence?

Mr. Wakeham: We need the lowest possible electricity prices for consumers and British Coal has a part to play in that. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be in Britain's best interests to have long-term coal contracts, but those must be negotiated on commercial terms.

Energy Efficiency Office

Sir John Hannam: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what the budget for the Energy Efficiency Office will be in 1992–93; and what was the comparable figure for 1979–80.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones).

Sir John Hannam: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this year more than £1 billion is being spent by the public sector on energy efficiency? Much energy could also be saved by businesses. Has he any new initiatives in the pipeline for energy efficiency in the business sector?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I can confirm the figure given by my hon. Friend. The funding of the Energy Efficiency Office in my Department has risen 10 times since the Government took office in 1979. The energy management assistance scheme, which will come into place on 1 April, will grant-aid energy efficiency projects for smaller businesses—a new initiative to add to the many others that my Department already runs.

Energy Management

Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will outline what initiatives he is taking to encourage responsible energy management among businesses.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We are taking forward three major initiatives: the making a corporate commitment campaign, which is designed to secure board level commitment to energy efficiency; best practice, which is the Department's main programme of energy efficiency information transfer; and the energy management assistance scheme, which I have mentioned and which gives grant aid to the energy efficiency projects of smaller businesses.

Mr. Evennett: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, which makes most welcome news. What was the budget for 1979–80 and what is the predicted budget for 1992? Do not the figures show that the Government are committed to the scheme?

Mr Heathcoat-Amory: In real terms, the funding for the Energy Efficiency Office has risen 10 times during the past 11 years.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE ARTS

Arts Sponsorship

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he has any plans to visit Barnet to discuss the private sponsorship of the arts.

The Minister for The Arts (Mr. Tim Renton): I will be visiting Community and Recreational Arts in Barnet in March, where I will have the pleasure of attending the official opening of the Tedder lounge, which has been extended to include a wheelchair accessible art room. I shall be happy to speak about private sponsorship of the arts if asked.

Mr. Marshall: If asked, would my right hon. Friend be able to confirm that private sponsorship of the arts has generated an additional £46 million on top of the already large amounts of public expenditure? Would he also be able to confirm that the only threat to the continuation of that expenditure is the election of philistines of the left, who are opposed to the scheme and whose tax policies would pulverise the attempts of those who support the arts?

Mr. Renton: I agree with my hon. Friend. One of the very satisfying factors is that despite the difficult times that some companies are facing, they are continuing with their sponsorship of the arts, often in partnership with my office, through the business sponsorship incentive scheme award. It is sad that the Labour party has already shown indifference to that form of arts funding. If it does not kill off the golden goose, it will certainly let it starve to death through neglect.

Museum Charges

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Minister for the Arts what recent assessment has been made of the effect on attendance figures of the introduction of admission charges to museums.

Mr. Renton: Comparisons are hard to make because of the unreliability of the numbers recorded prior to the introduction of charges. However, evidence suggests that,


after an initial fall-off, admission numbers at those museums which charge have held up well in subsequent years.

Mr. Flynn: Since the catastrophic drop in attendance at the National Museum of Wales—a reduction which has largely been made up by the efforts of the museum staff —there is still bitter resentment among Welsh people that a barrier prevents them from seeing the treasures of Wales that were purchased and the national museum that was established as an expression of Welsh identity. Those shows of identity were paid for by the pennies of miners and the barrier was imposed by the philistine, alien Government who do not know the difference between a work of art and a tin of baked beans. When will there be an end to the philistine approach of the Government who apply a cornershop philosophy to the arts?

Mr. Renton: It is extraordinary to describe the Government or Welsh Office as philistine when the Government are currently spending £21 million on the extension and development of the National Museum of Wales in Cardiff. I had great pleasure in seeing I hat extension and I would be surprised if the hon. Gentleman had not visited it and was not looking forward to its opening. The fall in attendance was mentioned in the debate on the Museums and Galleries Bill the other day. Although a fall in numbers occurred in the first year after charges were introduced, that was largely due to the building works, but the figures have increased and Welsh men are looking forward enormously to the addition to their national museum.

Mr. Soames: Does my right hon. Friend accept that if the major galleries of this country are to go on with their extremely enlightened and successful purchasing programme, it is essential that we bring in charging for entry? Does he accept that the general public will not mind in the least paying to see these magnificent treasures? Will he further accept that there is a perfectly satisfactory formula under which all who are exempted from prescription charges are exempted from charges for entry to museums?

Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend will know that the galleries and museums that charge either do not charge or operate substantial concessions for the elderly, for school children and for educational parties. My hon. Friend puts his finger on a crucial point: the total income of the museums and galleries for which I am responsible, outside their grant in aid, is £48 million—up by £20 million from the figures for three years ago. If Labour came to power, it would remove all that money and thus deprive the public of the pleasure of the special exhibitions that are staged as a result of the charging policy.

Municipal Theatres

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement of the funding of municipal theatres.

Mr. Renton: Municipal theatres, which are an essential part of arts provision in this country, are funded and run by local authorities. As receiving theatres they do not attract direct Arts Council funding, but they benefit from the Arts Council's support for touring which enables more distinctive and varied programmes to be mounted.

Mrs. Gorman: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that it is possible, if arts societies stage productions that the population want to see or hear, for those societies to be self-financing—as the society in Billericay is? The arts society there produces an excellent range of cinema, theatre and music, professional and amateur, and last year made a profit of £30,000. By contrast, in nearby Basildon, whose council levies an extortionate community charge, the municipal theatre receives a subsidy of £1·7 million a year and makes a loss of £500,000, which has to be funded out of the pockets of my constituents?

Mr. Renton: I hesitate to enter a dispute about the rival merits of these two different establishments. I certainly appreciate the good work done by the establishment in my hon. Friend's constituency which she mentioned first; but I would point out that the Towngate theatre in Basildon also puts on some interesting performances—by Opera 80 and the Second Stride dance company, for instance. I understand that it recently hosted a show by the Chippendales, not a branch of the "Antiques Roadshow" but an American male strip show which played to an all-female audience. That at least shows a certain equality of opportunity.

Mr. Fisher: Will the Minister widen his reply to include funding of the national companies, and in particular will he explain the remarks that he made to the Royal Society of Arts last week, when he speculated on the Government funding the national companies directly? Is that ending of the arm's-length principle Government policy or is it another example of a Minister, who knows that he has only another five weeks in the job, making a remark entirely of his own without consulting his civil servants, the Arts Council or any of the national companies? Will he make his position clear: are the Government going to end their arm's-length approach?

Mr. Renton: That question is a long way from municipal theatres. However, if the hon. Gentleman had attended the seminar at which I made my remarks last Monday—I greatly regret that he was not there to hear me talk about delegation to the regional arts boards—he would have known that I made the point that if such delegation is fully successful—if the regional arts boards are progressing well—the question whether the five major national companies should continue to be funded by the Arts Council or be funded directly will arise. I framed my remarks in a hypothetical context following on from delegation to the regional arts boards, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not there to listen and to learn.

Touring Companies

Mr. Amos: To ask the Minister for the Arts what steps he is taking to encourage the increase of touring by arts companies.

Mr. Renton: Following the record increase in Government funding of the Arts Council for 1992–93, I am delighted that the council has decided to increase its touring budget for England for next year by over 19 per cent. to £9·6 million, and to increase substantially the separate Great Britain touring fund.

Mr. Amos: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the quality of cultural life in the north-east is second to none?


Will he join me in congratulating Queen's hall in Hexham on winning so many national awards? Will he give an assurance that he will sustain the generous funding of Northern Arts that he has managed in the past few years?

Mr. Renton: I am well aware of the good work carried out by the Queen's hall arts centre. Its public sector funding depends on money from Northern Arts, and I am delighted to confirm that, as a result of the record settlement that I was able to negotiate for overheads, Northern Arts will receive a 13·9 per cent increase for 1992–93 amounting to more than £5 million.

European Arts Festival

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Minister for the Arts what plans he has for the European arts festival; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Renton: To ask the Minister for the Arts, what plans he has for the European arts festival,—[Interruption]
The European arts festival, which I announced on 9 December will be a rewarding and imaginative way of celebrating our Presidency of the European Community in the second half of the year. Some £6 million is being made available to support a full programme of events across the United Kingdom.

Mr. Greenway: I thank my right hon. Friend for that doubly impressive answer. Will there be something for everybody, for people of all ages, in the European arts festival? Would not the festival be a good way to allow our citizens to improve their knowledge and understanding of European languages and culture?

Mr. Renton: Yes. I was so carried away by the wisdom of my hon. Friend's question that I found it necessary to repeat it.
It is hoped that the European arts festival will reach all parts of the community, schoolchildren included, and will bring a tradition of British art in the European context to all parts of the country, including Ealing, North.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Executive Agencies

Mr. John Evans: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of the civil service unions to discuss the operation of executive agencies.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Tim Renton): I meet representatives of the civil service unions from time to time to discuss a range of issues. Union members have an important part to play in the continued success of "next steps".

Mr. Evans: Did the Minister discuss with the unions concerned the maintenance of free collective bargaining and union recognition in the agencies? Will he take this opportunity to give a categorical assurance that none of the agencies will be allowed or encouraged to derecognise any of the civil service trade unions?

Mr. Renton: Derecognition of the civil service unions is certainly not part of our policy. In the context of the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I must ask him to appreciate that one of the important matters now being

examined by the chief executives of the agencies is the issue of greater pay flexibility and performance pay, so that better results can be achieved, both by individuals and in terms of customer service, from a given amount of pay. That matter was being discussed at the chief executives' conference that I attended in Harrogate on Thursday, and it is a matter of great importance to all those working in the "next steps" agencies.

Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, since these bodies remain within the civil service, some of us feel that executive agencies are neither fish nor fowl nor good red herring? Will he see what can be done to improve parliamentary accountability for the agencies because, in particular since they are responsible to the Public Accounts Committee, Ministers should be prepared to answer questions about them?

Mr. Renton: I disagree with my hon. Friend about the agencies being neither fish nor fowl nor good red herring. They are an extremely important development for the civil service and for those parts of the civil service that are especially concerned with delivering service to the customer. If my hon. Friend has a chance to visit any of the executive agencies, as I do, he will be very impressed by the way that they are tackling their tasks. My hon. Friend asked about answers to parliamentary questions. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has submitted proposals in that connection which I think are being studied by the appropriate House of Commons Committee.

Dr. Marek: The Minister will know that for some years London weighting has been frozen because the Minister's policy is to pay just sufficient *to recruit and retain civil servants. Does he intend that policy to be part of the new executive agencies?

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman is wrong, and I think that he knows it. Although further London spine points have been introduced and the amount of extra pay given to people working in London has therefore increased, there is more flexibility in the system than there used to be. Now, the emphasis is on pay agreements that will meet the specific needs of the civil service and of the executive agencies throughout the country, rather than on maintaining an unnecessarily rigid or uniform structure —a structure which did not necessarily produce the best results in the past.

Civil Service College

Mr. Dunn: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a progress report on the Civil Service college.

Mr. Renton: The college is contributing to a better-trained and more professional civil service. It has recently published its prospectus for 1992–93, and I will send my hon. Friend a copy.

Mr. Dunn: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that one of the tasks of the Civil Service college is to inculcate a sense of responsibility, a sense of loyalty and a sense of commitment to the Government of the day? Will he urge those who run the college to use the example of Mr. Pashley to illustrate the way in which a civil servant ought not to behave? I refer to


trading in stolen documents with the Labour party—a practice that has not, I believe, yet been condemned by that party.

Mr. Renton: I appreciate the sentiment that lies behind my hon. Friend's question. The work of the civil service is, of course, dedicated more to the training of senior management and training in the key professional skills such as information technology, audit, purchasing and supply. As for the basic question of loyalty to which my hon. Friend referred, that consideration should be fundamental to the acceptance of a civil service job, and I hope that it will always remain a priority for every civil servant, regardless of which party is in power.

Mr. Winnick: When the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was Prime Minister, Mr. Bernard Ingham and Mr. Charles Powell exercised far more influence on members of the Cabinet, apart from on the Prime Minister herself. Would it be possible for the Civil Service college to illustrate, by means of that example, what should not happen, and to demonstrate the amount of abuse that took place at that point in our history? Would not that be useful?

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman does his best to get everything out of context whenever that is possible. His hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Banks) is one of those Members of Parliament who have contributed regularly to college courses, and I am delighted that he has done so. Perhaps he would like to put his hon. Friend right in regard to the question of bias at the college.

Sir John Stokes: I admire the work of the Civil Service college. Does its principal keep in touch with the colleges in Her Majesty's forces, which maintain such a high standard in every respect, while also ensuring that intelligence is applied to complex problems?

Mr. Renton: I know the principal well. She is a woman —and I am very pleased that she is one of the women heading the executive agencies. I am sure that she follows up precisely the kind of matter to which my hon. and loyal Friend has referred, but I shall make certain that that is so, and write to my hon. Friend.

Appointments

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many senior civil service appointments subject to prime ministerial approval have been made since 1979.

Mr. Renton: There are currently about 170 posts in grades 1 and 2 of the civil service. All appointments in these top grades have been subject to the consent of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Banks: Does the Prime Minister see some dangers there? Maintaining the previous Prime Minister's attitude to the selection of senior civil servants—"Is he one of ours?"—will lead to the politicisation of the civil service at the top level, and I believe that that has happened. Would it not be better either to move over to a "spoils" system —which would at least do away with all the hypocrisy, and

would be more honest and open—or to appoint civil servants via a Select Committee, or through some other all-party approach?

Mr. Renton: Those comments are unworthy of the hon. Gentleman. I am glad to say that his thoughts are not shared by Opposition Front Benchers. I can only assume that it was from his previous experience as chairman of the Greater London council in 1985–86 that he learnt all about "getting your friends appointed to the key jobs", and that that is why he assumes that the same is happening in the civil service now. It is not; the top people are appointed solely on the basis of their merit and intelligence.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is sad to hear the ex-leader of the Greater London council, who appointed people purely on political merit, suggest that senior civil servants are chosen on anything other than ability? Would it not be a sad day for this country if that attitude of mind took hold? We are well served by our civil servants. Although Governments come and go, governance in the civil service sector of this country continues untainted.

Mr. Renton: I agree with my hon. Friend. The civil service procedures for the most senior appointments are well established. They have been supported by both sides of the House for many years. They are based on ability to do the job. I do not believe that we should cast aside at all lightly the all-party support for these methods.

Staff Development

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what opportunities exist for civil servants based in Great Britain to gain experience in duties relating to Northern Ireland as part of staff development programmes.

Mr. Renton: Staff are regularly seconded to the Northern Ireland Office from other Departments and agencies. In addition, several Departments offer postings to their offices in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Dalyell: May I welcome the presence of the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary when asking a question of which I have given notice, in the hope of a serious reply? What is the House of Commons to make of the reports of serious on-going disagreements between, on the one hand, Mr. Ian Burns and other most senior officials in the Home Office and the Metropolitan police, as represented by Mr. Bill Taylor, and, on the other side of this subject of how to deal with Ireland-originating situations, Mrs. Stella Rimington whom the Government, with a fanfare of trumpets, announced as the head of MI5? Does the Minister agree that answering as he does, in a sense, for the Prime Minister, this is a very serious matter for the House of Commons?

Mr. Renton: I know that the hon. Gentleman tabled an early-day motion on the subject a short time ago. However, he well realises that these matters of detail are for response by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. If he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity to raise the matter in the debate that is to take place later this afternoon.

BCCI

Mr. Keith Vaz: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the need for urgent action by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry following the settlement proposals for BCCI.
The matter is specific because, as the House knows, the liquidators of BCCI and the representatives of the Sheik of Abu Dhabi last Friday published, at long last, their settlement proposals. The proposals have as their cornerstone a very substantial payment of between $1·7 billion and $2·2 billion by the Sheik of Abu Dhabi. I pay tribute to the generosity and assistance of the sheik in seeking to support the innocent depositors of BCCI. The Government of Abu Dhabi have retained their dignity. Even the advertisement in The Daily Telegraph today is in measured tones. I welcome the proposals, but they are complicated. There is much detail and depositors may have to waive some of their rights.
The matter is important because on 14 January 1992 the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in a 13-minute exchange of faxes, appointed four liquidators on the undertaking that they would hold a creditors' meeting within a certain time. Twenty weeks after the closure of the bank, the creditors have still not been consulted. As was demonstrated last Friday, the liquidators—the £1 million a week men—appear to be out of control. They were more interested in briefing the press than in telling the creditors' association and the staff committee about the proposed deal.
The matter is urgent, because I understand that the liquidators are proposing to go to court imminently to seek to be relieved of their undertaking to hold a creditors'

meeting on the ground that such a meeting would be too difficult to arrange. The vast majority of creditors have not been consulted about the proposal. It is perfectly possible, in my view, should they not want to call a meeting, that, via a satellite link-up around the globe in five or six world centres, depositors and creditors could talk to and listen to the liquidators. I understand that this would cost less than a mass meeting in London, which is estimated to cost £750,000.
The creditors must be allowed to discuss the settlement and ask questions of the liquidators. They need to know when the first payments can be made. Local authorities, and others, need the money now. We need to know why proof of debt forms have still not been sent out by the liquidators and, thus, why no money has been paid under the statutory scheme.
Under the liquidators' proposals they will merely be sent a form for depositors to state whether they approve of the deal. They will not know exactly who they are not going to be allowed to sue. That is not good enough. During the negotiations there was a need for secrecy but no longer. We need a full debate in the House to allow the Secretary of State to set out what proposals he has to deal with this unsatisfactory state of affairs.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely
the need for urgent action by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry following the settlement proposals for BCCI.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 20, I have to announce my decision without giving my reasons to the House. I have listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman has said about the matter, but I regret that his application does not meet the criteria of the Standing Order and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

Points of Order

Mr. Martin Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your advice? You will recall that on 27 January I asked the Secretary of State a question about the disabled in the coal mining industry. He ignored and disbelieved the figures which I quoted but which I had obtained from a Government agency. He stated that he would write to me, but he has not done so. If Ministers make misleading statements from the Dispatch Box, what recourse does a Back Bencher have?

Mr. Speaker: I understand that there has been a misunderstanding, but we must not have another debate on the subject now.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Wakeham): When the hon. Gentleman asked his question earlier this afternoon, I had no idea to what he was referring. I have since checked the Hansard report of the previous Energy questions, and I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that the information that he requires will be sent to him today. There was some delay in my Department in getting the information, and I apologise to him for that.

Mr. Allan Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you will have noticed from today's Financial Times, the Army is to shed 3,500 service personnel. As you know, this causes many problems with regard to affordable housing and relocation of those who are being discharged. I understand that the Secretary of State is to give a press conference at 3.30 pm. I wonder whether you, Mr. Speaker, can use your good offices to bring the subject before the House so that we can debate it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that hold that press conferences—if given—should preferably be given on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Alun Michael: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that points of order were raised on Friday when a Conservative Member objected to the Shops (Amendment) Bill under which there would be a White Paper and a detailed Bill to overcome the Government's intolerable laziness in condoning law breaking on this subject. We called for the Government to find time to consider the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell)—

Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me? There was an exchange about this on Friday which went on for a long time and which, in my judgment, was somewhat out of order.

Mr. Michael: The point of order for you, Sir, is whether you can guide us. Having had a vote of 222 to 4 in favour of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend, how can Ministers be dragged into allowing us to debate and vote on the issue?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that I do not give procedural advice on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Derek Enright: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you can advise me. At the weekend a group of constituents came to see me because they were incensed by a statement made by the

Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department which implied that the West Yorkshire police were incompetent. How can I raise this matter and get the Secretary of State or someone else to apologise for the disgraceful slur on the West Yorkshire police, who are gallant and efficient gentlemen?

Mr. Speaker: I am sure they are. The hon. Gentleman has not been here as long as some other hon. Members have. I can give him advice on such matters of procedure privately, if he comes to see me one evening after 10 pm.

Mr. Win Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you advise me? It is obvious that the Government have not made a request to you today to make a statement on the meeting of Environment Ministers and European and United States leaders in Estoril at the weekend on the important issue of banning chlorofluorocarbons and protecting the ozone layer I understand that today the Department of the Environment is either issuing a press release or holding a press conference on the issue. Has the Department requested to make a statement, if not today at least tomorrow, on that important issue?

Mr. Speaker: It is an important issue. I have had no request today for a statement.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be possible to refer to the death in the Netherlands of Mrs. Kate ter Horst? She was a very brave person during the battle for Arnhem in September 1944. Would you consider writing a letter—[Interruption.] Conservative Members may not be interested. At the cost of her life, in September 1944 she allowed her home to be used by British troops.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should table an early-day motion on the matter, which would achieve wide support from hon. Members of all parties. It is not really a matter for me.

Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At the weekend, there was a report that an employee in the private office of the Secretary of State for Employment was phoning industrialists touting for quotes to be used against Labour. It is clearly a deplorable practice to use ministerial telephones in such a way.

Mr. Speaker: If that is true, it is not a matter for me. I am not a member of the Government, and I do not know who is telephoned at weekends. I can say that I was not telephoned at the weekend.

Mr. Cohen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The quotes were to be used by a Minister in the House. Is that not tantamount to misleading the House? Is that not an appalling practice and a matter for you—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peter Hardy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I tried to catch your eye at Question Time because of a matter which has been drawn to my attention and which seems to be extremely serious. I understand that in at least one of the executive agencies, the Benefits Agency, staff are about to be required to wear uniforms. Can the House directly challenge or approve such a development in an agency? There may be serious


implications. If such a practice is established in an agency, it may be only a matter of time before staff in Government Departments have to wear uniform. Shall we see shoulder flashes bearing the name of the Department concerned? Would you approve of such a development, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: There is an old Chinese proverb—"In vain is the net laid in front of the bird."

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that you are in the tricky position of not being able to communicate with the two political parties, or with any of the other Rag, Tag and Bobtails, and in view of the fact that you have to live a relatively lonely life, may I ask whether you have been tipped off about the election? The Press Gallery is abuzz. There have been leaks from Ministers—not from civil servants—that the whole thing is fixed for a Cabinet meeting on the Thursday following the Budget, for an announcement to be made that day, for the Finance Bill to be wound up in two days and for this Parliament to come to an end on 16 March. Everything has been sorted out by the Government. Have you been tipped off? We have to pick up the information from the press. If the press knows, it is high time that the Government had the guts to tell us the information from the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my intelligence is good, and I have been tipped off that there is to be an election in the near future.

Mr. Terry Lewis: On a genuine point of order concerning the protection of Back Benchers, Mr. Speaker. No doubt you, Sir, will be aware that the Table Office is refusing to accept hon. Members' questions referring to health authority matters in the regions. I accept that, up to a point, there are good reasons for that. I also accept the advice of the Table Clerks that I should write to the chairmen of regional health authorities and that I have now done. But surely Ministers responsible for divulging to Back Benchers information on the health service should be aware that delays are being built in at source—in the regional health authority areas—and that hon. Members are not being given the information about the health service that they seek on behalf of their constituents.
I suspect that this is another of those conspiracies whereby those on the Treasury Bench are trying to suppress bad news in the run-up to the general election. Should not you, Sir, protect Back Benchers' interests in this matter?

Mr. Speaker: I have not had the matter brought to my attention, but I will look into it.

Mr. Winnick: Further to my earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker. On reflection, I should perhaps have raised the matter on another day, and I take your point about tabling an early-day motion. I think that there will be general agreement in the House that Kate ter Horst was an

exceptionally brave person who gave aid to dying and wounded soldiers. The purpose of my point of order, Sir, was simply to ask whether it would be possible for you to write to her husband, who was also injured in the road accident, to express our sympathy and to let him know that we have not forgotten what his wife did in 1944.

Mr. Speaker: I could do that only with the permission of the House, but as Arnhem is linked with my own borough of Croydon, I would certainly consider writing a private letter on this matter.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Further to the important point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), Mr. Speaker. I fully understand and accept that you will not have been told by the Government the date of the general election, but I am sure that you will agree that the traditional right of hon. Members in connection with what is probably the most important day in the parliamentary year—Budget day—to have a full four-day debate on the Budget is extremely important. Can you confirm that, if any attempt were made by the Executive to curtail debate on the Budget to fewer than four days—a four-day debate would be in accordance with the precedent established as far back as any hon. Member can remember—it would be a serious infringement of hon. Members' democratic rights?

Mr. Speaker: That is an absolutely hypothetical question because there are other dates mentioned.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I will have to take it by way of balance.

Mr. Bottomley: If we are regularly to be faced—as we have been this afternoon—with a succession of points of order exclusively from Labour Members attempting to continue until as to near 4 o'clock as they can, would it be possible for the Labour Chief Whip to organise a raffle so that only one or two of them can raise points of order while the rest of us get on with the business for which we are here?

Mr. Speaker: I think that we should get on. The trouble is that, as the House knows, if we do not have a private notice question or statement to take us to 3.50 pm, when the television cameras go off, we tend to have points of order instead.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.),

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft Registration (Land and Deeds) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Question agreed to.

Terrorism

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1992 be approved.
It is clear from the recent exchanges that some Opposition Members are keen to have a general election. It is equally clear that they are not keen to debate the order because they are highly embarrassed about the line that they are going to be invited to take later by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley).
The prevention of terrorism Act is an exceptional measure. It is justified only by the wholly exceptional threat that this country faces from terrorism. It is absolutely right that each year Parliament should consider whether the Act need continue in force. Today I am once again asking the House to approve the Act's continuance in force because it remains an essential part of our defences against terrorism.
Those defences cannot be lowered while the terrorist threat remains high. Let us be quite clear from the beginning of this afternoon's debate exactly what that threat has led to. There was no let-up in the terrorist campaign last year. In Northern Ireland, 94 people were slaughtered and more than 900 were injured as a result of republican and loyalist terrorism. Last year I reported that in 1990 there had been more terrorist incidents on mainland Great Britain than at any time since 1975. I regret that I have to report the same again this year.
In 1991 terrorists struck on the mainland at a variety of targets—military, political and economic—and used a variety of means. Three people died, including two terrorists, and 39 were injured. The House will recall some of those incidents: the explosion at Victoria station last February in which one man died and several children were injured; the mortar bomb attack on Downing street in the same month; and the large number of incendiary devices that were planted in shops and on trains.
So we should be under no doubt today about what it is that we face. It is a ruthless campaign of murder and destruction here on the mainland and in Northern Ireland. It is a campaign which is conducted regardless of the risk to innocent people. It is a campaign conducted by terrorists fanatically committed to their own misguided causes.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Baker: I will give way in a moment.
In the debate last year, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said that
The Act creates the illusion of a campaign against terrorism."—[Official Report, 4 March 1991; Vol. 187, c. 32.]
I put it to the House that the Government's campaign is a very real one and that the powers of the Act form an essential part of it. The House will recall the recent incident in Coalisland where four men, including Kevin Barry O'Donnell, died. Here was a man stopped in north London with Kalashnikovs in the boot of the car he was driving. He was acquitted of possession of firearms with intent to endanger life, but I was satisfied that he had been involved in terrorism and that here was a very dangerous man from whom people needed to be protected. So I

exercised my power to exclude him from Great Britain. Following his expulsion and his recent death, the IRA boasted that O'Donnell had been a member of its terrorist organisation since 1988 and had been active in operations against military targets throughout Britain. I have no doubt that my decision to exclude him was the right one, but without this Act I could not have done so.
Our response to the terrorist campaign is not, of course, confined to this Act. It is much more than that. At the front line here in Great Britain are the police who are pitting themselves—often at great personal risk—against the terrorists. The House will not expect me to go into details about what this effort involves. Suffice it to say that very substantial resources of manpower and equipment are needed and I will ensure that the police get the resources, the manpower and the equipment that are required. I have seen calls for an agency to fight terrorism, but I want to make it absolutely clear I that we have an effective national organisation. I can assure the House that the central co-ordination of anti-terrorist activity across the country, on the whole, has been achieved. The House will no doubt recall the arrangements for this which I announced last year.

Mr. David Winnick: All hon. Members are appalled by the continued slaughter in Northern Ireland and the way in which people have been murdered. I will not dignify the murderers by using the term paramilitaries: they are out-and-out terrorists whether they are members of the Provisional IRA or killers on the other side.
What purpose is served by the smear stories over the weekend—whether or not the Home Secretary is in any way responsible for them—which seem to suggest, and more so in this immediate pre-election period, that Labour is soft on terrorism? Is it not useful for the House and the country that we are united against terrorism and we condemn it at every opportunity? If we have differences—obviously there are differences—over this measure, what purpose is served, except to give aid and comfort to the terrorist, to pretend that the Opposition are soft on terrorism?

Mr. Baker: I shall refer to that matter later, but there was national consensus on terrorism and on the Act until 1983. The Act was put on the statute book by a Labour Government and it was operated by Labour Ministers who sat in the same Cabinet as the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. That was the national consensus that existed. That is what I am asking the House to restore tonight—a national consensus. National consensus can be restored only by the Opposition voting for the order.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Home Secretary address the question which I think that he heard me put to his colleague, the Minister for the Civil Service? What is the House of Commons to make, in relation to counterterrorism activities on the mainland—we cannot know the full truth of the matter—of what purports to be a row between Mr. Ian Burns and other senior officials in the Department, supported by Mr. Bill Taylor and senior officials of the Metropolitan police, against attempts by Mrs. Stella Rimington to enlarge the role of MI5 in that situation? Does not that raise very serious questions for civil liberties in this country?

Mr. Baker: There is no row at all. I do not propose to depart from the long-standing practice of Governments of both parties not to comment on operational matters relating to the security service, but I am quite certain that Mrs. Rimington is the best person for the job, and she has my complete confidence in the charge of the Security Service. Naturally, we are continuing to ensure that the arrangements for countering the terrorist threat are as effective as possible. That is what the Government have always done and that is what we will continue to do.

Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Home Secretary said that he thought that Mrs. Stella Rimington was the best person for the job. Will he make it clear whether he meant the best person for the job as head of the Security Service or the best person for the job, in answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), in taking over counter-terrorism?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not raise a point of order and then put a question to the Home Secretary; that is not fair.

Mr. Baker: I expressed my confidence in Mrs. Rimington as the head of the security services.
No one can delude himself into believing that we will always succeed in catching all the terrorists—that will never be possible—but I do know that the effort is substantial, is sustained and is highly professional, and I invite the House to join me in thanking and congratulating all those engaged in it. Could I remind the House of some of their successes? Recent arrests have disrupted terrorist activities on the mainland and resulted in charges and the recovery of bomb-making equipment and weapons. The courage and vigilance of a police officer led to the discovery of bomb-making equipment in a garage in north London. Just recently, a bomb was successfully defused just 100 yds from this Chamber, in Parliament street. Photos and videos of wanted terrorists have been issued.
Another part of our campaign is the ban on direct broadcasts of representatives of proscribed organisations or those speaking in support of such organisations. I appreciate that that is not part of the order, but it is one of the weapons that we use to deal with terrorism. The Labour party is pledged to lifting that ban. It is a highly irresponsible policy. Such broadcasts can be deeply offensive to viewers and listeners, especially for those who are related to the victims of violence. Furthermore, terrorists and their supporters have in the past taken advantage of those appearances to deliver indirect threats to the public. Apologists for murder should not be given a platform to air their defence of evil.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Baker: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Let me now refer to the prevention of terrorism Act itself. That provides essential powers to counter the terrorist threat. Without those powers, the police would be severely hampered in doing their job. In urging the House to support me in seeking the continuance of the Act for another year, I am pleased to have the backing of Lord Colville of Culross, who carried out the independent

review of the operation of the Act during 1991. I take this opportunity to express thanks, on behalf if the House, to Lord Colville for his report.
I should like to remind the House of the powers of the Act, why we need them and why it is absolute nonsense to say that they create an
illusion of a campaign against terrorism.
The first power is the power to proscribe in Great Britain organisations that are concerned in terrorism or with promoting or encouraging terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. At present the IRA and the Irish National Liberation Army are proscribed. Without the Act, those organisations would be free to meet openly in Britain, recruit new members and raise funds as openly as other political parties. They could hold rallies and march through our streets. I believe that would be unacceptable, as I hope the House will agree.
In the past Opposition Members have expressed their doubts about the power of exclusion.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: Before the Home Secretary leaves that part of the Bill, does he recall that a year ago we on the Opposition Benches said that we would gladly welcome the extension of the tougher measures laid down in the emergency provisions Act to England and Wales? Tougher measures would make it more difficult to raise funds for terrorist causes. Has the Home Secretary yet thought about whether he will accept the Opposition's suggestion that we should be tougher?

Mr. Baker: In view of the hon. Gentleman's question. I shall deal with terrorist finances now. The Government were the first in the world to introduce legislative measures against terrorist finances. Those measures have given the police an additional and invaluable investigative tool, which has enabled them to obtain information on not only the funds but the movements and activities of terrorists. Lord Colville repeated his criticisms of the Act in this year's review, but I believe that the existing provisions are broadly right. We have reviewed them carefully during the past year. We have examined the provisions of the 1989 Act, as we undertook to do, and we have identified some improvements. Those improvements now have the approval of the Association of Chief Police Officers and we shall introduce them at an early opportunity.

Mr. Hattersley: Could I have a straight answer to the simplest of questions? I reminded the Home Secretary that a year ago we asked for the tougher powers that already existed in Northern Ireland legislation to deal with funds that go to terrorist organisations. Is he prepared to move forward to tougher powers or is he not?

Mr. Baker: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have listened to what I said or to the reply that I gave a year ago. I dealt with the powers of the emergency provisions Act last year. They have been operating for only a short time in Northern Ireland. We are reviewing them. We think it unlikely that those powers will operate effectively in the United Kingdom. However, we have some improvements and we shall introduce them. I hope that I shall have the support of the right hon. Gentleman in that. We shall also introduce changes in the general legislation on money laundering and drug trafficking, because the interaction with that legislation is also important. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that this year we have already found that those powers prove effective. As I said, I am broadly content with their operation at present.

Mr. David Trimble: Perhaps I did not hear the Home Secretary aright. I understood him to say a moment ago that the additional powers in the emergency provisions Act to deal with terrorist finances were "unlikely to operate effectively in the United Kingdom". Does he wish to reconsider what he said? Was he saying that the powers in the Act are unlikely to operate effectively in Northern Ireland? If so, why are they there and why is not he considering amending them?

Mr. Baker: I meant Great Britain—on the mainland, as it were. The powers are operating effectively in Northern Ireland in rather different circumstances.

Sir John Wheeler: On the important point about the seizure of assets, will my right hon. Friend agree that the issue is more complicated than it seems if one considers it only from the fairly narrow straitjacket of the prevention of terrorism Acts in England and Wales? Does he agree that a wider extension of criminal justice legislation in England and Wales is necessary to enable the proceeds of serious crime to he seized, whatever the cause of the crime? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the difficulty is distinguishing between a supposedly terrorist activity and a straightforward criminal activity and understanding the intermesh between the two?

Mr. Baker: That is the very point that I made a moment ago. There is an interaction between the existing legislation on money laundering and drug trafficking and the prevention of terrorism Acts. We have identified certain improvements in the provisions of the prevention of terrorism Act and we have also identified changes which we want in the general legislation. Both will be introduced immediately after the general election.
On the power of exclusion—the point at which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook interrupted me—the Act permits a person to be excluded from all or part of the United Kingdom. The purpose is to limit the areas where terrorists may carry out their activities. As I said last year, ideally it will be possible to charge such people and to bring them before the courts. In practice, however, that cannot always be done, as our information comes from sources that we cannot disclose without risking people's lives. The power of exclusion is a valuable one in limiting terrorists' spheres of operation. To remove it would be to remove an important part of our ability to protect the public, as I have illustrated in citing the example of O'Donnell.
I want to make it clear that decisions to exclude are not made lightly—I deal with each one—and the person excluded also has the right to make representations to an independent adviser. Lord Colville in his review of the Act reports that he cannot find anything to criticise in the way that decisions were reached. He further notes that the exercise of the power has been modest in 1991 and that the balance imparted by the advisers has shown its worth.
Now I come to the powers of arrest, examination and detention. The Act empowers the police to examine people at ports and airports to determine whether they may be involved in terrorism; to arrest and detain on reasonable suspicion of involvement in terrorism; and to detain without charge for an initial period of 48 hours and for a further period of a maximum of five days on the authority of the Secretary of State. All those cases are referred to me. None of those powers would exist but for the Act.
Judging by past performance, we will shortly hear from Labour Members that those powers are oppressive and unnecessary. I do not agree. Successive Home Secretaries since 1974 have not agreed. Only certain Opposition Members—including, I regret to say, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook—now hold to that view. Those who do so simply misunderstand the Act. They fail to grasp the nature of terrorism and fail therefore to see what needs to be done.
Terrorism is an insidious threat. Terrorists have a ruthless commitment to their cause and a total disregard for the lives or safety of innocent people. We are dealing with fanatics who stop at nothing. We must respond to them with appropriate measures if we are to fulfil our obligations to the people of this country, who are entitled to be protected from men and women of that sort. I am convinced that those powers of arrest, examination and detention are essential parts of our battery of measures.
Let me anticipate one line of argument. I expect that it will be said that, because relatively few people are charged following detention, these powers are not needed. But that argument serves only to illustrate the misunderstanding of the situation. What these powers do, among other things, is to provide a sizeable deterrent to the movement of terrorists and of their materials. I am entirely satisfied from what I know that these powers do deter. They make life more difficult for terrorists. I am not prepared to remove deterrents from these people, and I do not think that Opposition Members should do so either.
I think that it is also relevant to remind the House that careful consideration is given to all applications for extensions of detention. Lord Colville acknowledges that diligence in his review and also notes that lengths of further detention were, in his words, "astutely fitted" to the stage which the police had reached in their investigations. I can therefore assure the House not only that are those powers necessary, but that they are used with all due care and attention to the rights of those detained.
May I turn now to the position of the Labour party and its attitude to the prevention of terrorism Act. It was a Labour Government who put the Act on the statute book in 1974, in the wake of a series of severe bombings. The powers of the Act were implemented by two Labour Home Secretaries, Roy Jenkins and the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). They were also exercised by Labour Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and Scotland. In 1983, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook decided to change Labour's policy and to vote against re-enactment of this Act. That was the end of the bipartisan approach. That has been Labour's policy for the past eight years.
The right hon. Gentleman has been loudly condemned by his former colleagues and none with more feeling than the distinguished former Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins, who said of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook in the debate in 1983:
He is lucky that it becomes increasingly unlikely that he will ever become Home Secretary. If he did, he would be racked by a conflict between his genuine concern for public safety and the foolish commitments that are part of the games into which he has entered in opposition".—[0fficial Report, 7 March 1983; Vol. 38, c. 576.]
What an indictment of the right hon. Gentleman that those words are as true today as they were nine years ago.
The criticism of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook —he is smirking—by his own party members does not stop


there. The former Northern Ireland Secretary, Roy Mason, speaking in the House of Lords—[Interruption.]Labour Members are sneering at his name, but he was a member of the Cabinet, of which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was also a member, which fulfilled this Act. He said:
To defeat the terrorists there is a price to pay. There is the inconvenience, irritation, annoyance with police and Special Branch Officers, and the curtailment of our total freedom and civil liberties. But to combat evil men we must maintain the full legal armoury that Parliament has decreed should be available, and that is what I urge my party and this House to do"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 February 1988; Vol. 493, c. 573.]
With all the irresponsibility that comes from absence of experience and high office, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook thinks that he knows better than his former colleagues who had to bear those grave and serious responsibilities.
The right hon. Gentleman should note that if, by using the Act, a Home Secretary had excluded only one terrorist who would otherwise have been engaged in acts of murder in this country, the Act would have been worth while. I should have thought the example of the O'Donnell case, which I cited earlier, would give even him pause to think.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Terry Lewis: rose—

Mr. Baker: I shall not give way as I am dealing with the views of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook.
Last year, the right hon. Gentleman, in the conclusion to his speech, recommended that there should be inter-party talks and I dare say that we shall have that stale, meaningless camouflage trotted out again today. It is pathetic that the Labour party is going to call for a committee to fight terrorism. One does not fight terrorism with agendas. One does not reduce terrorist activity with minutes. One does not deal with terrorists by composite resolutions. One does not do it by talking tough and acting soft. What the public want is the prevention of terrorism, not a convention of terrorism. While all that talk goes on, what will happen to the 91 people who are excluded under the Act at the moment? Presumably, they will all be allowed in.
The policy that is now strung round the neck of the Labour party on terrorism is the particular invention of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. He persuaded his party to change its course and policy back in 1983. He knows that police forces want the Act retained with all its powers. The chief police officers of our country made that clear in their evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs and various other senior police officers have also made that clear in recent days. Yet the right hon. Gentleman persists in wanting to weaken the powers that exist. I would expect the Leader of the Opposition to take a personal interest in this policy, as he aspires to a post in which he would have responsibility for national security. He should decide the Labour party's policy and take that power away from the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. The policy of the Labour party is hugely unpopular and it is irresponsible.
Over the years the right hon. Gentleman has demeaned himself by trying to find weasel words such as "inter-party talks" and "searching for a national consensus". I tell him

what the common purpose is. The common pupose is to fight terrorism with all the means at our disposal and with all the powers within this Act. That is what this country wants. That is what the country will get from this Government.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: There was a moment 12 or 13 minutes into the right hon. Gentleman's speech when I thought that, for once, he was going to behave like a Home Secretary. That hope was dashed in the final five minutes of party conference sub-rhetoric.
I have to tell the Home Secretary straight away, although I wish to approach the subject with a more reasoned tone than he adopted, that we do not propose to take any lessons in dealing with terrorism from a Government who gave safe passage out of the country to the murderers of WPC Fletcher in order to avoid trouble with the Libyan Government. Nor do we propose to take any lessons on terrorism from a Home Secretary who presided over that matter when the two men most wanted for terrorism escaped from Brixton prison. He has not yet told the House how involved he was in the special branch farce leading to their escape.
The whole issue needs to be discussed in a far calmer way than the Home Secretary seems capable of these days. He behaved today as we have come to expect of him. He discussed the battle against terrorism in the language of an eve-of-poll rally and his last speech from the Dispatch Box has confirmed the reputation that he has established during years in this House—the cheapest Home Secretary this century.
I do not propose to reply in kind but to tell the Home Secretary that the record of the past 13 years shows that the Tory Government have been no more successful in their battle against terrorism than in their fight against crime. The shouting that we have heard today was intended to obscure failure. In government, the Labour party will fight terrorism with no less passion than the Government have shown but with more practical determination. Consequently, we shall have more practical success. I therefore propose to set out the practical changes that are needed.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: No.
I repeat the view that I expressed a year ago—indeed, it was less than a year ago because, for reasons that we can only guess, this debate has been brought forward: the fight against terrorism would be best conducted with all-party agreement about methods and objectives. The idea that all-party agreement requires committees seems to have been developed by the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), yesterday.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: rose—

Mr. Kenneth Hind: rose—

Mr. Hattersley: If the Home Secretary is taking his lead from the Minister of State, no wonder he gets into so much trouble so often. Last week and again today, the Secretary of State rejected the idea of all-party agreement or an attempt at consensus because he is clearly looking for


single-party advantage. I must make it clear to him that, once the election is over, we shall renew the offer. We realise that all-party agreement is necessary if terrorism is to be defeated.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way, or is he frightened?

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman terrifies me. That is why I am not giving way.
We realise that all-party agreement cannot be obtained by one side of the House—the Government—taking arbitrary decisions and expecting the other side of the House—the Opposition—to fall into line. If the Government want a common view on the subject, they must discuss what that common view should be. That will be our intention after the general election.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: No. I must make some progress.
There is already complete agreement between the parties on three parts of the Act. Parts I and III of the Act should not cause contention between us. None of us likes proscribing political organisations, yet all of us agree that, in the present circumstances, proscription is undoubtedly necessary. The IRA has no legitimate existence in a democratic society and we wholly endorse the part of the Act that makes it clear that it has no legal or legitimate role.
We also agree that is essential to prohibit the raising or provision of funds to finance terrorism. In our view, parts I and III of the Act must remain. Indeed, I repeat the view that I expressed last year—tougher powers and harsher penalties should be imposed on those who assist in the raising of funds for terrorism or who provide funds for terrorists.
Last year, I asked the Home Secretary whether he would consider operating in England and Wales the special powers available under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. I believe that they should be extended to England and Wales, and I regret that the Home Secretary has not had the resolution to make that extension, which we would certainly have supported.
Part IV of the Act relates to arrest and detention, and requires more detailed examination. The subject needs to be examined against three principles. The first is the necessity to have within the criminal justice system special procedures that deal explicitly with the threat of terrorism. The second obligation is to accept that the special procedures must be consistent with the rule of law. The third obligation is to ensure that the special procedures are effective and obtain the results claimed of them.
Every authority—the Law Society, the Bar and the police—now says that one of the major obstacles in the fight against terrorism is the difficulty of obtaining convictions in terrorist trials, a subject with which the Home Secretary might have dealt when he considered the O'Donnell case. The Home Secretary was explicit in his self-congratulation—one of his great talents on having made an exclusion order against O'Donnell after he had been acquitted. How much better it would have been if O'Donnell had been convicted in this country.

Mr. Hind: rose—

Mr. Hattersley: The Law Society, the Bar and the police all specify that a major problem that must be overcome is the difficulty of obtaining convictions in terrorist cases. They unanimously agree that part IV of the prevention of terrorism Act does not assist in that process.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Hattersley: I will give way, first, to the hon. Gentleman who is hailing me.

Mr. Nicholls: Before the right hon. Gentleman indulges in behaviour of that sort, he should look at some of the other Labour Front-Bench spokesmen.
The right hon. Gentleman's desire to see IRA terrorists convicted would carry a little more conviction if, every time one were convicted, one of his hon. Friends did not campaign to secure the terrorist's release.

Mr. Hattersley: For a number of reasons, that is one of the most disgraceful comments that I have ever heard in the House. I do not say that in defence of my hon. Friends, who can defend themselves, but on behalf of those men and women who were wrongfully convicted and were allowed out of prison only because of the campaigns of my right hon. and hon. Friends. For the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) to make that charge is not simply an attack on Labour Members, but a suggestion that those men and women who were imprisoned for long periods and then released should not have been released. That is a disgraceful thing for him to say. I shall now give way to a more reasonable Member.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I share the right hon. Gentleman's aspiration to achieve convictions in terrorist cases where guilt can be established by proper and civilised standards. However, I hope that he is not suggesting that we should reduce the standards of proof applied in the criminal courts of this country or the rules of evidence in terrorist cases. Does he not agree that, if the choice is between a potentially unfair conviction and an unfair exclusion order that leaves the subject at liberty, one has to choose the exclusion order every time?

Mr. Hattersley: Of course, I am not arguing for a reduction in the rules of evidence or the standards of procedure. Had I not given way to the hon. and learned Gentleman, he would have discovered that I am arguing for something different, perhaps quite the opposite.
Every authority—the Law Society, the Bar and the police—makes exactly the same point: part IV of the PTA does not assist in the process of obtaining convictions. The civil liberties arguments about how sections of that part work are overwhelming, but so is the practical argument that, if we are to improve the prospects of terrorists being convicted in British courts, it is essential to make some changes to that part.
I accept that a period of extended detention, even before charge, may be necessary; but the question is: how is that extension to be approved and how is the suspect to be treated during the period of the detention? That becomes particularly important when we recall that the suspect is arrested on reasonable suspicion alone; and doubly important when we realise that last year 153 persons—an extraordinary figure—were detained, yet only four of them were charged under the PTA.
In last year's report Lord Colville, to whom I offer my congratulations as the Home Secretary offered his, dealt at


length with extended detentions—extended up to the limit of seven days, extended not by judicial decision but by ministerial fiat. I do not doubt for a moment that the Home Secretary looked with great care and in person at each one of these orders, yet—this ought to concern a democratic House of Commons—is it right that a period of imprisonment can in effect be imposed by a Minister of the Crown, for that is what this provision amounts to?
I agree entirely with Lord Colville's general conclusion on the subject. He said last year:
It is now perhaps irresistible that some new tribunal be set up to oversee these powers. It could draw on Scottish and Channel Island methodology.
He called for a "bold new initiative". This was not said by some Back-Bench Members of the Labour party about whom the Home Secretary has nightmares, nor by some radical in a civil rights organisation: it was said by the noble peer invited by the Home Secretary to conduct an inquiry into his own procedures. And the noble peer called for a bold new initiative on the way in which detention orders are extended. I make it clear today that we will provide—

Ms. Clare Short: Would my right hon. Friend like to add that this noble peer is also a former Tory Home Office Minister, yet he is making these criticisms of the Act?

Mr. Hattersley: All these things add up to a formidable biography which should encourage the Home Secretary to take the noble Lord's words seriously, to weigh them genuinely and to react to them sensibly.
The Home Secretary knows that by referring to the Scottish and Channel Island methodology Lord Colville was invoking a system that involves an independent—indeed, a quasi-judicial—authority to approve extended detentions. That is why the Scots, unlike the English, have not been arraigned before the European Court for the way in which they extend detention from 48 hours to seven days. It is why the Scots, unlike the English, are not in breach of article 5 of the convention on human rights.
It is true to say that Lord Colville does not believe that the judiciary should approve extended detentions, since he said that that is not consistent with our legal traditions. That is why he talks about a new tribunal, but I make no apology for saying that I believe that the tribunal should be judicial—ideally, a judge sitting in chambers so that he can approve the detention without any risk of leakage of security information. As the Home Secretary knows, that was the view of the previous Home Secretary, too. He discussed this reform with the judges who were unwilling, or felt themselves unable, to co-operate in that scheme. I have no doubt that, if pressed by a determined Government, they will accept the scheme, so that this breach of the European convention, this damage to the reputation of our legal system and this deterrent to obtaining convictions, will thus be removed.

Mr. Hind: Lord Colville clearly supports the idea of detention orders and believes that they are necessary. Does the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Hattersley: Of course I do, which is why I said so five minutes ago. If the hon. Gentleman likes, I can repeat what I said. I accept that in special circumstances in the fight against terrorism extended detention may be

necessary, but I believe, with Lord Colville and unlike the Home Secretary, that there should be judicial review before there is an extension from 48 hours to seven days. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now concentrate so that he will not have to ask me to repeat what I have said.
This leaves the question of how we treat the suspect while he is in detention or the subject of extended detention. I take at its face value the assertion of previous Home Secretaries that the object of detention is not to trawl for information—it is not a haphazard intelligence-gathering exercise. It is a genuine attempt, after detaining a man or woman on suspicion, to prevent an offence from being committed, or to prosecute and convict the man or woman for an offence that has been committed. That requires common sense as well as respect for the rights of the suspect during the process of interrogation.
The suspects of whom we speak are not protected by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. However, that is the protection, the safeguard, which the Home Secretary insists on claiming would protect them and prevent a recurrence of the miscarriages of justice which have sent so many innocent men and women to prison in the past 20 years.
If the Maguires, the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six were charged again today, they would not be charged under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, with all the safeguards that that involves, but under the PTA without any of those safeguards. It was making exactly that point that led the new chairman of the Criminal Bar Association to say on television last week that it was no wonder the courts would not convict in terrorist cases, when the normal safeguards of interrogation were not available during the period between arrest and trial.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Perhaps I could help the right hon. Gentleman to make himself clear. He says that if the Birmingham Six were charged today they would be charged not under PACE but under the PTA. Charging is quite different from the arrest or holding of people in custody, which is done under the PTA. But the charge would be what it was—murder—and the criminal law would be used, not PACE.

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and he makes my point with a precision that I wish I had used. They would have been detained under the PTA. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing up the argument that I was trying to address. As they would have been detained under the PTA, they would not have enjoyed any of the protection that would have been available to them under PACE. [Interruption.] If the Home Secretary wishes to argue with that contention, he will have to do so against all authority because that is undoubtedly the case. It is precisely because of that point that the chairman of the Criminal Bar Association said on television that it was not surprising that courts would not convict when detention did not carry with it safeguards governing rules of evidence that are common in the country. That is a tragically dangerous state of affairs and steps must be taken to remedy it.
I understand that it was in order to defeat that difficulty that the Home Secretary ordered the pilot scheme by which interviews conducted with PTA detainees in Liverpool and London are now being taped. I am surprised that the Home Secretary is arguing the point. I


have twice discussed the issue at length with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. He made it plain to me that he does not think that there should be any legislative change until the results of the pilot scheme are available. However, he puts the case for universal recording with such clarity that he needs a wider audience. I think that the Home Secretary has a copy of the letter that the commissioner sent to me. That is surprising, but I do not complain about it. As the Home Secretary will know from his oversight of my private correspondence the commissioner said:
There is a strong argument that because interviews with all other suspects are recorded, the courts, juries and the public will see this as normal and accepted practice.
The commissioner then commented on how some lawyers would behave and went on to state:
it is all very well saying that the law exempts such cases, but it is the effect on the jury that must be of concern.
I have made it plain, and I am happy to repeat it if the Home Secretary wants me to, that the commissioner went on to argue the opposite case and gave his view that no changes should be made until the results of the pilot scheme were announced. I could not have put the commissioner's view more clearly.
It is also suggested that some of the problem lies in Northern Ireland, and that the Home Secretary would act to provide PACE-style safeguards if he did not feel that that would prove detrimental to the position there. I hope that the Minister of State will deal with that point when he winds up the debate. We should not forget that, last year, Lord Colville told us that some members of the Northern Ireland judiciary were now pressing for the recording of interviews with suspects, and pressing for that to be done quickly. Let me make it clear that we shall introduce as many PACE safeguards as possible, and that the taping of interviews will be one of them. It is right in principle and necessary in practice, if convictions are to be obtained.
The third contentious area is, of course, part II, which deals with exclusion orders. Such orders have been described—not least by Sir Cyril Phillips, another of the distinguished gentlemen invited by the Home Secretary to conduct a review of the Act—as "internal exile". Sir Cyril, the first examiner of the Act, said that they should be abandoned, as their advantages were
difficult to demonstrate in a convincing way.
In 1987 Lord Colville—I shall not give details of his impeccable pedigree—said that he believed that outright abolition of exclusion orders was the proper course. A year later, he said:
I renew my recommendation that Part Two of the Act should not be renewed or replaced in the new Bill.
Twice, the Home Secretary rejected the recommendation of his own adjudicator. In 1987, Lord Colville accepted —as was required of him—that the last word rested with the Home Secretary. This year, he has observed—rather gloomily, some would say—that, while the rules governing exclusion orders have been meticulously observed—and I do not doubt that—where renewal was concerned,
It is not for me to argue otherwise.
We shall accept Lord Colville's advice. We believe that exclusion orders are wrong in principle, and counterproductive in practice. It must surely be offensive to parts of the United Kingdom, such as Northern Ireland, to be treated like a dumping ground for terrorists from the mainland, and that certainly alienates law-abiding citizens who are caught unjustly by the provisions.
It is not only those who are excluded who are inconvenienced, temporarily imprisoned and, by implication, mortally insulted. Only 11 new exclusion orders were made last year—that is shown in table 9 of the statistics—but 10 times as many people were detained at ports and told that they were being considered for exclusion orders. I can think of nothing more likely to alienate the law-abiding Northern Ireland citizen from the process of law in this country than being treated in such a way.
It is, overwhelmingly, the question of exclusion orders that provides the illusion of activity; yet it may well be that, in the case that the Home Secretary chose to cite, the exclusion order did no more than transfer danger from one part of the United Kingdom to another—and, indeed, intensify the danger when the excluded man was returned to his colleagues, comrades and fellow conspirators. I want such people to be convicted, and they will not be convicted unless the prevention of terrorism Act is changed in such a way that the courts will respond to it in the manner that I believe even the Home Secretary hopes that they will.
In the time available to me, I have made two positive suggestions for change. I conclude as I began, by saying that those changes will come about; but I still believe that much would be gained in the fight against terrorism if they were agreed and supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Only the terrorist can secure anything approaching benefit from the kind of display that we saw from the Home Secretary, and from the suggestion that we are not resolute in our determination to beat terrorism. Although we may disagree about the ways in which it can be achieved, our common purpose is to drive the terrorist out of the United Kingdom once and for all.

Mr. Sayeed: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: No; I am finishing my speech now.
No one who has heard what the Labour party has to say on this subject could possibly interpret our view in the way in which the Home Secretary has chosen to interpret it today. The right hon. Gentleman will, of course, continue to do so between now and polling day, but that does not diminish us; it diminishes him. We shall go on saying what is right and necessary and when we are elected in six weeks' time we shall put that into operation.

Sir John Wheeler: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). He is, if I may put it in my own words, a very distinguished parliamentary relic. What he has said about the measure is of very great importance. In the few moments that I have, I intend to touch on some of those issues. I am bound to say, however, that the right hon. Gentleman's speech lacked any potential for exciting intestinal commotions, due to its curious construction and the way in which he sat on the hedge when it came to some of these very complicated issues.
The right hon. Gentleman's reference in his opening remarks to the Libyan embassy incident of many years ago was, frankly, both shameful and unfortunate. His attempt to link my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary with the escape from Brixton prison was unworthy of him. I am sorry that he chose to introduce those remarks into the debate when there were serious questions to be considered, which he subsequently went on to discuss.
The difficulty for the House is that all of us on both sides, regardless of party, are united in the belief that we should prefer to do without this Act altogether. It is an exceptional Act to deal with the exceptional activity of terrorism. The very nature of the terrorist act requires measures to be available to those who have to fight terrorism in a practical way. The justification for these measures must be whether the police and the law enforcement agencies in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom think that the Act and its measures are necessary and desirable. My advice is that they do. They have said so to me on a number of occasions. As long as the police and the intelligence agencies make their case —that they require the provisions of this Act—it behoves the House to give them the support that they deserve.

Mr. Hind: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that we expect that the Labour party will vote against the order sends entirely the wrong message to those who are actively involved in terrorism, both on the mainland in the United Kingdom and in Northern Ireland and elsewhere—that in some way we are divided over this vital matter which affects the protection of our community not only in Britain but in Northern Ireland itself? Does my hon. Friend feel that this is a shame and that it should be rectified, and that on this occasion the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and his supporters should think again?

Sir John Wheeler: My hon. Friend is right to make that point. If the suggestion is that we should repeal the Act and replace it with a committee of the House, which seems to be the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, it would appear that, somehow or another, the institution of Parliament is not united behind the police in giving them what they say they require in order to maintain their prosecution of terrorism.

Mr. Hattersley: I must let the hon. Gentleman into a secret. The point that he makes about a committee of the House is a simple absurdity. From time to time Ministers of the Crown, even as illustrious as the Secretary of State for the Home Department, ask their opposite numbers to discuss with them matters that they believe to be in the national interest. I am happy for the Home Secretary to make public every occasion that he has made that request to me. What I am saying is that this is one of the occasions when a similar technique should be operated. The idea of a committee is an invention of the Minister of State and by definition, therefore, is trivial.

Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He makes his position clear. If, as I understand it, he implies that there should be an occasional meeting of right hon. Members who are members of Her Majesty's Privy Council to discuss the operation of the Act, or how it should be amended, or what further additions should be made to it, I have to point out to him that that is what happens today and that it has prevailed for many years.

Mr. Hattersley: Oh, no, it has not.

Sir John Wheeler: It is perfectly possible for Privy Councillors to have discussions of the kind that he suggests without there being a vote against the Act, or a

repeal of the Act, because there would flow from such discussions any changes that were thought to be desirable. As I have already said, however, the substantive reason for retaining the Act on the statute book is that the police and the law enforcement agencies believe it to be essential. Are we to go against the overwhelming weight of professional advice when the incidence of terrorism prevails in the United Kingdom as well as in Northern Ireland?

Sir Anthony Durant: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sir John Wheeler: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to finish this point.
Statistical information relating to the operation of the Act provides evidence that we are also dealing with a rising tide of international terrorism, which is also caught and covered by the provisions of the Act.

Sir Anthony Durant: Does not my hon. Friend find it surprising that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) did not answer the Home Secretary's question about Lord Mason and Lord Jenkins, both of whom are distinguished members of his party, who support the Act?

Sir John Wheeler: My hon. Friend is right. Two distinguished Privy Councillors have expressed a view. Whether there would be any further purpose, therefore, in a wider gathering of Privy Councillors to cogitate on the progress of the Act seems to me to be doubtful. It sounds to me very much like a case of avoiding the principle of the issue. There are some in the Labour party who are resolutely opposed to the Act and who intend to vote against its continuance. I understand the difficulty that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook faces in that context.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the exclusion orders. The statistics show that there have been few such orders. They can be subject to independent review by the three adjudicators, the so-called wise men. Provision has been made for that. Adjudicators are thought to be desirable. They are used only in extreme cases and remain a valuable tool.
The right hon. Gentleman also touched on the tape recording of interviews and, allied to that, the video recording of interviews.

Ms. Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir John Wheeler: Perhaps the hon. Lady will allow me to develop this point, and then I shall give way.
Of course, the tape recording of interviews is a thoroughly desirable objective, with which I have considerable sympathy, as the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis set out in his letter to the right hon. Gentleman and as he has said to me in conversation. The difficulty, however, if there are tape recordings or video recordings of interviews with terrorist suspects, is whether they subsequently become available to the courts and thus come under public scrutiny and put in jeopardy the lives of people who are fighting terrorism, or the lives of would-be informants, or the lives of the individuals themselves. The behaviour of suspects during interviews and the statements that suspects may make in private to the police and other officers are often significant and helpful in the combating of terrorism. That is the danger—terrorism is exceptional and cannot be treated in the same way as fraud, auto-crime or burglary.

Ms. Short: May I take the hon. Gentleman back to the question of exclusion orders? It seems that the logic of exclusion orders is to remove from Britain people who are thought to be dangerous and who might be involved in killing people for political purposes and to send them to Northern Ireland where the network of those who kill for political purposes is more powerful. Those people are, therefore, more likely to kill, so the logic is that life in Northern Ireland is less important and less valuable than life in Britain. That is outrageous. Our laws should seek to convict those believed to be involved in terrorism rather than to dump them in Northern Ireland.

Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to the hon. Lady because she raises issues to which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook referred. As she must know, herein lies the difficulty of obtaining convictions for criminal offences committed by persons who are called terrorists—there is no such thing as a crime of terrorism. A person must be arraigned before a jury in England or Wales and charged with a criminal offence. Evidence must be obtained and presented to the jury, which must be able, without any qualification, to convict on that evidence.
As the hon. Lady will know, it is very difficult to obtain that information in the case of terrorists. One reason why it is difficult is that some information that comes into the possession of the police and others cannot be made public in the court room without putting in jeopardy other anti-terrorist operations. These are the difficulties which the House, the police and the judicial system suffer. In Northern Ireland one-judge Diplock courts must operate because of the threat that terrorists make to would-be jurors. We regret that, but we must face reality.
The hon. Lady also said that it was wrong for people excluded from England, Wales and Scotland to be returned to Northern Ireland. But if they hail from Northern Ireland they must go back to the Province if that is where their home is. She then said that such people could be a further threat to the citizens of Northern Ireland. Some hon. Members may make the case—and I have heard some do so to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—for selective internment so that such people do not pose a threat to the citizens of Northern Ireland. I shall not make that case—I leave it to others who may choose to do so—but that is the implication of the hon. Lady's intervention.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: Does not it strengthen my hon. Friend's argument to recall that, from time to time, the IRA has taken on the additional dimension of a mainland campaign and that exclusion orders can therefore be seen as a specific weapon to combat that dimension of IRA activity?

Sir John Wheeler: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We know that terrorists have operated on the continent of Europe and the issues that we face are very complicated.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook considered the report by Lord Colville of Culross. I have also read that report and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that it is a thorough review and that we should be grateful to Lord Colville for the independence and objectivity of mind that he brought to it.
The problem is that in a democracy, while we may review the issue, that review does not necessarily produce the evidence for abandoning the provisions of the Act. I

continue to support the Act's substantial provisions, including that to proscribe terrorist organisations. It would be inconceivable for persons in England to parade through the streets seeking to raise funds for or to promote a terrorist cause in the aftermath of some terrible incident that had been seen on the nation's television screens and for there to be no way of proscribing that activity. There would be considerable outrage among people, so it is essential that the proscribing provision should remain part of the Act.
The power to arrest and to detain people for up to 48 hours and for extensions thereof under the authority of the Secretary of State is also essential. Examination of the statistics shows that the Secretary of State's authorisation is sparingly given in a limited number of cases, but the fact that it exists and that officials must convince the Secretary of State of the necessity to allow an extension is a reasonable balance of rights, and it is vital that the power remains in the Act.
Another essential power is that of controlling the movements of passengers into and out of the United Kingdom. In the coming years, the issue of the removal of internal frontiers within the Community will make that provision all the more important. Police agencies advise that without that power to control the movement of certain parties into and out of the United Kingdom they would be in serious jeopardy. We must continue to review matters in the light of developments within the Community.
The Bill remains an important part—although not the whole—of our fight against terrorism, whether it originates within the United Kingdom or externally. Of the 121 detentions in 1991, 79 per cent. were in connection with Northern Irish terrorism, but it is significant that 32 detentions in 1991 were in connection with international terrorism, a problem which is increasing within the European Community and the world in general. On that basis alone, it is essential that the provision to control movement into and out of the United Kingdom is available to the police and other authorities to enable them to continue the fight for liberty and democracy on behalf of the overwhelming majority of ordinary people in this country.

Ms. Clare Short: I feel enormous disrespect for the Home Secretary's attempt today to use the grave and terrible problem of violence in Northern Ireland for cheap party-political purposes. How low will the Government stoop? The issue of violence in Northern Ireland is of enormous importance and is one of the gravest with which the House must deal. We are talking about life or death for large and, sadly, at the moment increasing numbers of people.
One would expect the House to rise to the seriousness of the challenge and to discuss the problem with great sincerity and thoroughness. However, the Home Secretary gave the lead and, in their interventions, members of the Tory party tried merely to play games because they think that they can score points which will help them in the forthcoming general election.
As has been mentioned, the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974 was introduced by a Labour Government in the immediate aftermath of the Birmingham pub bombings when there was an atomsphere of enormous anger—even


hysteria—in the country and in the House. There was also enormous fear at the the Home Office that the House would push through the reintroduction of capital punishment.
At that time I was working in the Home Office as a private secretary to one of its Ministers of State. Roy Jenkins' fear was very great and the Prevention of Terrorism Act was cobbled together very rapidly. I sat in the Box and listened on the night it was debated. Roy Jenkins had asked Brian Walden—a former Labour Member of Parliament for Birmingham, Ladywood who has admitted to me that he can always argue any case—to speak against the reintroduction of capital punishment. He made a brilliant speech in the context of a powerful and overwhelming fear in the Home Office.

Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an ex-civil servant, who is now a Member of the House, to talk about what went on—which presumably includes advice to Ministers—during the time when she was a civil servant? I have never heard anything like that in my life.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): It is not a matter for the Chair. It is the responsibility of the hon. Lady.

Ms. Short: That is absolutely right, Mr. Deputy Speaker: it is my responsibility. As I believe that the matter is of such importance and that it is a matter of life or death for people in Northern Ireland, it is important to share that experience with the House. It may elevate the tone of the debate and enable serious discussion about the merits or demerits of the Act. There is nothing improper and there is nothing that the public should not know. We have even been told this weekend that the Prime Minister may suddenly be in favour of a freedom of information Act. If we had such an Act, everyone in the world would be able to see the documentation to which I am referring.
I have described the mood and the fear. The Bill was put together very rapidly. I discussed whether it would have any merit with the man who put it together. He agreed that its main purpose was to prevent the restoration of capital punishment. Thank heavens that that was done otherwise the six men who spent all those years in prison for the Birmingham pub bombing would be dead instead of having been released after suffering that long deprivation of liberty. The people who were convicted of the Guildford bombings would be dead if the Tory party had had its way that night. The poor, wretched man whom the previous Tory Home Secretary so badly failed to defend and who was falsely convicted of the murder of a young girl would also be dead. I have described the purpose of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which prevented something much worse that night.
It is the duty of any serious people who sit in the House to look at the Act's record to see whether it achieves anything and whether it prevents terrorism. Have we reached the point at which calling the legislation the "Prevention of Terrorism" Act means that it can never be scrutinised? As it has its purpose in its title, does that mean that anyone who says that the Act may not be effective or that it may need changing will instantly be accused of being soft on terrorism? That is what is going on in the House today and it is beneath contempt.

Mr. Barry Porter: I agree entirely with the hon. Lady that this matter should be debated rationally. I point out to her that if the purpose of the Act was to avoid the reintroduction of capital punishment, it could have been repealed quickly once the hoo-hah had died down; it was not.
After the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and the Maguires, matters have changed. I am especially concerned about the way in which the Act deals with people who are in detention, which could be improved in practice. There is nothing wrong with discussing that; indeed, it is entirely right that we should discuss that. However, if the Labour party insists on voting against the Act tonight, people over there will not see it like that. They will see it as a sign of division and weakness in the House. I will discuss the Act with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) or with any Labour Members as long as they say that they agree that the purpose of the Act is to defeat terrorism. The Act is one part of the armoury, so let us keep it. However, it can and should be improved.

Ms. Short: I give the hon. Gentleman credit for being big enough to say—which is more than any other Conservative Members have—that the Act could be improved in the provisions dealing with the way in which people are detained, which led to the mistreatment of the Birmingham Six. We should learn from that and modify the powers of detention. However, the hon. Gentleman then went on to play the Government's game.
All hon. Members know that the Labour party wants to prevent and end violence in Northern Ireland as much as any Conservative Member does. Any serious politician knows that to be the truth. Yet what are Tory Members doing today? They are taunting us and trying to pretend that Labour is soft on terrorism. If anything is sending a confused message to Northern Ireland it is that silly, crass party political game which the Tory party is playing today. It is not any argument that Labour is putting forward.
Our party introduced the Act, so we feel responsible for it. We have looked at its record and we know that vast numbers of people have been detained under it, but then never charged. We, especially those of us who, like me, are of Irish origin and are in contact with people of Irish origin in this country, know that the 8 million people of Irish descent in Britain are angry with, alienated by and fearful of the Act. They are fearful that completely innocent people will be stopped and detained.
Anyone who is serious about bringing terrorism to an end knows that we must foster a great sense of trust in the security services and belief in the justice of the criminal justice system so that people will pass on information and have confidence in the system. Mao said that terrorists were the fish who swim in the sea of the public's attitudes and he spoke about the public's alienation from the system. It is overwhelmingly the case that people of Irish origin in Britain hate violence in Northern Ireland. They feel it more deeply than most English people do because they are aware of the involvement and history of their own people in that struggle. I feel it deeply myself. Most hon. Members know that my father came from Northern Ireland. It is an issue of great concern to us.
There is no doubt that the Act alienates people who hate terrorism and who hate the IRA from our criminal justice system generally and from the police force. They feel that they are in danger of being wrongly detained


when they visit Ireland. The Act has had an effect opposite to the effect that the title claims. It helps to create an atmosphere of alienation from a sense of confidence in the security services in Britain. Terrorist organisations want to engender such an atmosphere. That is our main and overwhelming criticism of the Act, and it is a serious criticism. I have described the true feeling among the Irish community and I wish that the Tory party would take that seriously.
The level of support in Northern Ireland for the men of violence is declining rapidly. Hon. Members may remember that the IRA went out of existence in the 1960s when it fizzled out after the border campaign. There was no IRA in Northern Ireland. We want to learn from that and to achieve that again. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who is here today, knows that many of us have respect for his approach to questions in Northern Ireland. The way to achieve our objective is for people in Northern Ireland and Irish people in Britain to know that Britain behaves justly in Northern Ireland and that it is against all discrimination, that the criminal justice system is fair, that people will be treated properly, that change can be achieved democratically, and that violence is out of order and should never be supported or applauded.
We can make greater progress. My own party's approach, both generally in its policy for Northern Ireland of working for the reunification of Ireland, but with the consent of the majority of people in the country, and specifically in advocating the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and of retaining only the powers necessary effectively to catch terrorists, will speed the day when violence will end in Northern Ireland. The Tory party's attitude today is deeply shameful. Playing games with the question shows that it has no standards at all in this pre-election period.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) said that the IRA went out of existence. We are not dealing now with the Official IRA; we are dealing with the Provisional IRA. The Provisional IRA has never been out of existence since it began. We are dealing with a different organisation altogether and with something which has been spawned in the recent violence and was helped forward by certain parties in the Irish Republic. We are dealing with a campaign of violence which was never paralleled in Northern Ireland by the stickies, as the Official WA is called. The House should be clear about what we are up against.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said that the only way to defeat terrorism is by all-party agreement in the House. I challenge that. I sat in the House when the legislation went through. I have been in the House for 22 years and there has been a wide consensus between Labour and Conservative Governments about how they should deal with terrorism in Northern Ireland. Have they defeated terrorism in Northern Ireland? There has been agreement in the House, but it has not defeated terrorism in Northern Ireland. We should not be looking at the sad and tragic state of Ulster today if terrorism had been defeated because of consensus in the House.
There is only one thing that will defeat terrorism. The House does not like to hear it and never did like to hear it.

Terrorism will be defeated not by consensus or agreement in this House but when the ruling Government of the time put it down with courage and resolution. Terrorism can be destroyed only when those who bear responsibility make the necessary effort and ask the House for the necessary powers to defeat it.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and others have argued that there is great difficulty in getting terrorist convictions in the courts. If that is so, what happens when one lets a person like O'Donnell out? I do not criticise the jury in the O'Donnell trial; no doubt they were honest people trying to reach an honest decision. There were a lot of pressures, arising from the cases of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four, at the time when the jury was trying to reach a decision. With all the eloquence of Irish blarney, O'Donnell completely bluffed that jury. He talked about his belief in God. He talked about his family and said that he was brought up to oppose violence.
I have some knowledge of Irish republicanism and of the way in which Irish republicans act. They can bluff, and that jury was bluffed. Many of them said, "This is a decent fellow who has got into difficulties. We must decide in his favour."
What is one to do with an O'Donnell—or with a multitude of O'Donnells—if one cannot get a conviction in a court of law? What can one do, other than use the exclusion order? The only option is to return such people. That is the argument that the Opposition must face. I do not like Northern Ireland being a dumping ground for terrorists, but I would rather limit the terrorists to certain places. I should have thought that, after what happened in London, O'Donnell's effectiveness in England would be over, and that he would probably have come back to Northern Ireland anyway. The point is that he was arrested in Northern Ireland and the police could not get evidence to charge him and put him to a court hearing. We know what happened thereafter.

Mr. Martin Flannery: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and pay tribute to him, because he profoundly believes what he says. Many of us believe differently, however, and if there is one thing about the prevention of terrorism Act that stands out a mile it is that it does not prevent terrorism. In fact, terrorism is worse now than it has practically ever been. I was here on the night when the bombs went off. There was no bluffing about what happened to the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, the Maguires and others. Not only does the Act not prevent terrorism; it does terrible things to people and thus encourages terrorism.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not think that the Act is responsible for what happens in the courts after a terrorist is charged. That is a matter for the courts. There can be miscarriages of justice in the best possible society. That happens, as we saw recently in another case that had nothing to do with terrorism. My point is that if one argues, first, that it is difficult to get a terrorist conviction in court and, secondly, that one cannot do anything with the people when they are let out, internment is the only option. That is the only way to take them out of society.
The Home Secretary seemed to think that the fact that those who support terrorism have been banned from speaking on radio or television had been helpful. On our television and radio, that ban has become a farce, because the media use actors to play the Gerry Adamses of this


world. Broadcasters say, "You cannot hear these people because of legislation," but then get an actor to repeat what they have said. That is the height of folly. Moreover, when an election comes, the ban is dropped and these people are suddenly respectable citizens who can fight the election and get whatever coverage the media will give them. That is a travesty and an insult to those dedicated to fighting and defeating terrorism.
We have heard it said that it would be outrageous if marches could be organised after an atrocity—that ordinary people would be outraged. At present, however, Sinn Fein, which is not banned, can organise such marches. That is what we are up against. Even in Glasgow, a march was organised contrary to the wishes of many people in the city. It went ahead in spite of efforts to prevent it and people were, indeed, outraged. I believe—and I remind the Home Secretary that I raised this matter with him last year—that if one is going to ban the IRA, one should ban Sinn Fein, because it is part of the IRA, and the police say that it is part of the IRA.
The leaders of the republicans defend violence. Someone whose relations have been murdered by the IRA may find himself sitting in a council chamber while IRA men posing as Sinn Fein members oppose the council's decision to pass a resolution of condolence. Why should people be forced into such circumstances?

Mr. Terry Dicks: Would the hon. Gentleman be surprised to learn that, for the past four years, my political opponent in the forthcoming election has been organising a platform of Sinn Fein speakers to make a case on the escalating violence in Northern Ireland, because, he says, they have been denied their right to speak on the radio in Northern Ireland?

Rev. Ian Paisley: People who say that should look to the south of Ireland. It was Conor Cruise O'Brien who first introduced the restrictions against the IRA in the south of Ireland. Those restrictions came not from this Government or from this side of the water but from the south of Ireland.
The Government must grasp the nettle. We cannot have IRA men, making the very same statements that IRA men would, wearing the respectable robe of Sinn Fein, as it were. Even in Dublin, the last Ardeis of the IRA was banned from the Mansion house. When asked why, the people said, "Because they support violence." Sinn Fein must be dealt with.
It would be sad if we sent to the people of Northern Ireland—who do not know the ins and outs of what we are discussing, but who know that a prevention of terrorism Act is being discussed—the wrong message. It would be a tragedy if they got the message that the House was divided rather than united on this issue. I know the different arguments, and people are entitled to their views, but we must consider the way in which these matters are perceived in our country, which has its back to the wall.

Mr. David Trimble: The Home Secretary referred to his broadcasting ban, which the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) described as a farce. It is a farce because, often, what happens in practice is that someone else says the words of the banned spokesman

while the pictures of the banned spokesman are seen. That is sometimes done so skilfully that it is almost impossible to tell whether one is dealing with the actual person who is speaking. In that way, the ban has been rendered utterly ineffective. Sometimes, people who should be covered by the ban can get round it by making comments that are regarded as not falling within the ban. As the hon. Member for Antrim, North said, that is different from the practice in the Republic of Ireland which, in that respect, is much superior to the practice in the United Kindom.
The terms of the ban in the Republic are the same as in the United Kingdom. In other words, the direction given to the broadcasting authorities in the United Kingdom is in the same words as the legislation in the Irish Republic. The difference arises because a Home Office official provided the broadcasting authorities with guidance in a letter which created two loopholes. Exactly the same wording is interpreted differently in the Republic of Ireland. As the hon. Member for Antrim, North said, the practice in the Republic is superior. To bring the practice in the United Kingdom into line with the practice in the Republic, the guidance provided by the Home Office official—presumably with ministerial support—should be withdrawn. The ban should be operated in exactly the same way in the United Kingdom as it is operated in the Republic.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that another practical effect of the broadcasting ban is that statements can be made by proscribed organisations without any challenge? That prevents the dialogue of debate whereby the ethics and politics of those who support violence can be rebutted in public by those who are opposed to that means of achieving political objectives. That is a much more serious effect of the ban than the facade of caricatures.

Mr. Trimble: I am sorry to have to disagree about that. I have heard it argued that the ban prevents the spokesmen and apologists for the terrorists from being subjected to vigorous cross-examination. There was no evidence of that before the ban. Broadcasters and journalists were singularly lacking in that regard and we know the reason for that: they were scared about what would happen. If the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) is suggesting that other political representatives who compete for support with the terrorists would be more vigorous in their attacks on them, that might be a side effect and benefit. However, that is a different matter.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) explained the Labour party's position in respect of the legislation. Although I may be wrong, he seemed to suggest that Labour supported the prevention of terrorism legislation with just three qualifications. He said that Labour supported parts I and III and the principle of part IV; but that he was worried about the safeguards on periods of detention. He said that he was worried about what we might call the Brogan point which relates to how extension is to be authorised. The only other point that he criticised was that in respect of exclusion orders.
If the reservations of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook with regard to the prevention of terrorism Act are limited to those points, which are comparatively minor points in respect of the legislation as a whole, I would have some sympathy with two of his three points. However, I


will have no difficulty in supporting the order if there is a Division. I hope that that lead will be given if there is a Division because we would give the wrong message to the country and to the terrorists if there is a Division on the issue in the House and it was revealed that there was substantial opposition to the fight against terrorism.
I support the legislation. Like other hon. Members, I congratulate Lord Colville on his report which is particularly good. However, a general three-hour debate in the House is not an adequate response to the report. I hope that there will be other ways in which parliamentary supervision of the legislation can be enhanced rather than us simply having this brief annual debate. This debate is not an adequate response, safeguard or oversight of such legislation and I hope that we can develop our procedures.
I want to draw attention to the passage in Lord Colville's report that deals with allegations of assault during detention. Of course the police are not all angels and occasionally mistakes are made and officers may not behave as they should. One must admit that occasionally ill treatment has occurred. However, the record shows that such lapses are extremely rare. On the other hand, there are many complaints and the number of complaints is increasing. However, those complaints are very rarely substantiated. The reason for that is that the complaints are made largely to waste police time; to tie up as many police officers as possible in investigating complaints; to inhibit police officers in carrying out their duties. The police know that if they carry out their duties comprehensively or with any enthusiasm or application, complaints will be made. Complaints are made also to muddy the waters by giving a false impression of the way in which the police forces operate.
In his report Lord Colville gives careful consideration to that matter. He shows that documentary evidence to rebut accusations of ill treatment is or could easily be available and could be produced in court if cases of people complaining of ill treatment were fought. I echo Lord Colville's criticism when he says that there appears to be a policy of settling cases when people have brought civil actions against police authorities. That is a wholly bad practice and I hope that it is discontinued.
I hope that a message from the Government will go out to the relevant departments that, when people bring actions against the police alleging ill treatment while in detention, those cases will be fought in open court and the evidence will be produced so that the cases can be resolved properly. The present situation in which complainants are bought off by paying them damages, often in completely unmeritorious cases, does not work and it creates an impression of guilt. As Lord Colville states in his report in his reference to a meeting of the United Nations committee against torture, that committee was given a false impression. Dubious bodies like the Committee on the Administration of Justice in Northern Ireland can use such material to blacken the security forces. Where actions are brought by people who have been interrogated and allege ill treatment, it is important that such cases are fought in open court so that the truth can be established instead of people being allowed to blacken the security forces.
I said earlier that I have some reservations about the legislation. As hon. Members are probably aware, our reservations relate particularly to exclusion orders.I am quite sure that exclusion orders, as they operate under the

legislation, are wrong in principle. They send the wrong message. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Ls present today—

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has been here throughout the debate.

Mr. Trimble: The Secretary of State said recently in Newcastle upon Tyne:
The strongest message that we can send from this part of the United Kingdom to our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland is that we are in it together, that we shall stand together to defeat terrorism, and nothing will divide us"—
unless, of course, we happen to find a terrorist in England who comes from Northern Ireland because we will not then stand together. The terrorist will be dumped back with us in Northern Ireland. In practice, exclusion orders undermine what would be the admirable sentiment behind the Secretary of State's words. In this respect, it does not matter so much what one says; what one does is what matters and that disproves the sentiment that was uttered.
Reference has been made to exclusion orders as a form of internal exile. That is not accurate. Under exclusion orders, a person is sent back to the area from which he came. We might consider a real form of internal exile. When the Italians deal with organisations like the Mafia, they have powers of internal exile. People are not exiled to their homes, but elsewhere, perhaps hundreds of miles away from their homes to a place where they are cut off from the organisations of which they are a part and they are kept under police supervision. Ministers might like to consider that form of internal exile. It would be preferable to the so-called internal exile that operates at the moment.
The matter of exclusion orders brings us to the O'Donnell case. The Home Secretary congratulated himself on deporting that gentleman to Northern Ireland after he had been acquitted. We now know, of course, that Mr. O'Donnell became or was a leading member of the east Tyrone brigade of the IRA and was later very active in the killings and bombings that took place in that area. Reference to the O'Donnell case brings up some significant points that should be made.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said that the Opposition wanted not exclusion but terrorists to be convicted. I think that I am right in saying that Mr. O'Donnell exercised his so-called right to silence throughout the time he was in custody, remained silent when being questioned, gave the police no indication of what line of defence he would take until the case came up for trial, and then sprang his defence which the jury unfortunately believed. Would the jury have believed that defence had the facts with regard to the accused's behaviour while in custody been available to them?
Only a few years ago, the Government introduced modifications to the so-called right to silence with regard to Northern Ireland. Those modifications, as the Government know, were quite slight. They have not had a dramatic impact; they are modest but useful improvements in the law. If those modest but useful improvements had been available in the O'Donnell case, the jury might have convicted. That case draws attention to the need to bring the law in Great Britain into line with the law in Northern Ireland on that point.
Another aspect in which that should be done—it is highlighted on pages 15 to 16 of the report—is what Lord Colville calls the "legislative shambles" of the measures dealing with terrorist finances. As Lord Colville says:
There is much need for a comprehensive round of reciprocal powers and duties. The 'legislative shambles' was only enhanced by the EPA's 1991.
He goes on to state:
It may be that these provisions should then be combined with the financial parts of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and its Northern Irish equivalent: there is still nothing of that sort available in Scotland.
In so far as the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook argued for uniform provisions throughout the United Kingdom, I fully agree with him. I was surprised that the Home Secretary suggested that the provisions would not work in Great Britain. I should be very interested if any reason can be given showing why they would not work.
Comprehensive uniform provision for the whole United Kingdom should not be limited simply to terrorist finances but should cover the whole range of anti-terrorist legislation. As has been said before, there is a clear need for a single United Kingdom-wide anti-terrorist Act which covers the whole range, rather than some powers being available in Northern Ireland, some powers available in Great Britain and not an exact match between the two. One aspect in which the mismatch is obvious concerns the lists of proscribed organisations. Only two are proscribed in Great Britain, but eight are proscribed in Northern Ireland. That is crazy and it underlines the need for comprehensive United Kingdom-wide legislation. Lord Colville refers to another need. Page 2 of his report states:
At present it is unclear what will happen after next January. It is no good relegating this issue…I find it extremely disturbing that there is so much uncertainty on the ground. Nobody now supposes that terrorists will book themselves on to obvious flights; for the Northern Irish from the Island to GB Ports; for the international from far afield to major international airports. Who thinks they are so naive? Experience shows the reverse.
I remain of the opinion that the idea of 'designation' of air and seaports, founded solely on a sufficient traffic within the Common Travel Area, is misconceived…What will happen next year about frontier controls in Great Britain depends entirely on the extent of a police presence if Customs and Immigration withdraw, in part at least. Parliament might also wish to contemplate the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, on which I have commented before.
Lord Colville is referring to what will happen in the context of what we call 1992 and the European Community—what will happen to the powers with regard to movement into the United Kingdom as a whole.
Many of the prevention of terrorism provisions deal with the movement of people between Northern Ireland or the island of Ireland and Great Britain. We need more comprehensive provisions dealing with movement into and out of the United Kingdom as a whole. We must have provisions that operate not just at airports and ports on either side of the Irish sea but at airports and ports facing the continent. Lord Colville suggests that, on occasions, instead of moving directly from the island of Ireland to Great Britain, terrorists move indirectly through continental staging posts and thus are not caught by the legislation. We need more comprehensive provisions that will work despite what the European Community does on movement within the EC as a result of 1992. We might also, as Lord Colville says,

contemplate the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic".
That border remains, as many security force personnel have said, a resource for terrorists, and the sooner that it is subject to detailed control, the better.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I hate the party game. I resent the idea that everything said by the Opposition is wrong, bad, unworthy and so on and that everything said by one's own party is right and virtuous. I always look for the good points in the Labour party's policy, realising that Labour Members sometimes—in my opinion, anyway—get it right and sometimes have constructive points to make about legislation. However, on this issue, there is absolutely no excuse at all for their policy. It is absolutely contemptible.
Labour Members are assisting the enemies of this country under the guise of the protection of civil liberties, but they know that the people whom they are assisting come from a minority of people within the United Kingdom who are engaged in violence against the majority because they cannot get their own way through the ballot box. So they have chosen to set aside the ballot box and ordinary civilised methods of persuasion and use violence instead. Labour Members know very well that it is out of the appeasement of Irish republicanism, which has infiltrated their own ranks, that they do not support restrictions on terrorists.
If Labour Members cannot see the connection between those two points—they are continually suggesting that there is no connection— they must be fools. However, Labour Members' attitude to this subject is one in respect of which they cannot be accused of folly, because they are not fools. They know very well what they are doing. They know the effect that it has on the country, especially on our enemies—on Irish republicans who take to violence. They know that it is interpreted as encouragement, not opposition. Because they appease the men of violence, they share the same objective—a united Ireland which would involve the overcoming of British people in Northern Ireland.
Opposition Front-Bench Members are very sensitive about this matter. Individually, they are decent and honourable people. That is why they are so sensitive about it. They know very well that their motive is unworthy. The motive of the Labour party and its policy is unworthy. It is directed against the interests of the people of this country generally; it is directed against the British nation. Yet Labour Members pursue it. Why is that? It is for unworthy motives.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) protests that the reason why Labour Members will not support the very legislation that they themselves brought in is some defect which has suddenly appeared and which is contrary to civil liberties in this country. We must examine their specific points of complaint. For example, who has the right to agree and authorise an extended period of interview of suspects? I can see that there is a strong argument in principle for saying that that right should be conferred on some sort of judicial authority. That point is certainly debatable and arguable. But it is no justification for voting against the very measure that is directed against terrorism in Britain.


That argument is spurious; it is bogus; it is unworthy of the intelligence of Members of Parliament who make it; it is petty. Yet that is how Labour Members argue.

Mr. Robin Corbett: What about Colville's recommendations?

Mr. Stanbrook: The name Colville has just been mentioned. Of course, Colville is in favour of the continuation of the order in principle and in general. He suggests intelligent, sensible and reasonable modifications. It would certainly be open to the Labour party to propose such modifications. The time to do so is when the principle of the Bill has been accepted. That is the same principle that we apply to all legislation. We debate the principle on Second Reading. If there is a point, an amendment or an improvement to be made or if some particular part of the Bill is unacceptable we debate it in Standing Committee. Individual Members and parties have their opportunity to vote against it. That is not what the Labour party is doing on this occasion. The Labour party is voting against the whole of the special legislation directed against terrorism.
I do not know why I should bother about the Labour party's position, because, after all, it is a point against the Labour party in the minds of the general public. The public cannot understand why the attitude of the Labour party is so feeble and spineless and why it is apparently willing to appease the enemies of this country and the violence that they bring upon us all.
Of course, terrorism is not merely one problem for Britain. It is an evil; it is a wicked thing, the greatest of all crimes; it is murder and creating mayhem for no other reason than a desire to achieve some political objective or change in policy. That is the terrorist's justification for the wanton violence which kills innocent men, women and children not only in Northern Ireland but on the mainland.
Therefore, we are justified in bringing all our resources to bear on the problem of terrorism. So far, we have not done so. However, I say that knowing that in recent years and certainly recent months additional resources have been made available to deal with the problem. I believe that recent measures will be effective in due course. The measures that have been taken cannot necessarily be revealed, but can it be denied that the prevention of terrorism Acts are one of the legislative weapons that must be used in the battle? There are many others.
I support a measure that has always been rejected when I have put it to the Government. I believe that once a terrorist is convicted the appropriate punishment for him is imprisonment for the duration. It should not be a limited term—five or 10 years or whatever—so that he may go back out on the streets and commit his offences again. I am sure that the proportion of recidivists in the terrorist population is higher than among ordinary criminals. Such a measure seems only common sense if we are to tighten up our anti-terrorist laws. Let the terrorist who has been convicted of terrorism stay in prison until all terrorism comes to an end. I can think of no more effective way of ensuring that it does.
One must also accept that there is much support for the political objective of the terrorists in the island of Ireland. Unfortunately, that is why there is no consensus between the two sides of the House about the ways in which to tackle terrorism. There is so much support that devices such as this legislation might not be effective. Political

measures have to be taken. Otherwise, the problem might remain with us. There will always be people who contend for a united Ireland.
The Republic of Ireland makes claim in its constitution to sovereignty over Northern Ireland. We are all exercised at present by another section of its constitution which seems equally foolish and in need of revision. If the Irish Republic wanted to contribute towards peace, stability and reconciliation in Northern Ireland it would renounce the clause of its constitution which claims sovereignty over Northern Ireland. It gives spurious legitimacy to the men of violence. After all, what are those men doing? They are simply trying to achieve by force what cannot be achieved by the ballot box and democratic means.
The supreme court of the Republic of Ireland said in a recent judgment that the IRA was responding to a constitutional imperative. The Irish Republic has given support to the men of violence in Northern Ireland in that way. Of course, the people of the Irish Republic are all decent, honourable men. They do not intend these things to happen. But they do happen, and the support that the Republic gives is valuable to the violent republican movement.

Mr. Flannery: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Stanbrook: I will give way later.
We must seek a political solution. We must surely start by saying that the people in Northern Ireland who do not want to be British are entitled to go and live elsewhere. If, in the border areas, there is a sufficient majority, why should not we redraw the border so that those people who desire to be within the sovereignty of the Irish Republic are in that sovereignty? Why should not we provide generous rehabilitation grants for people who find themselves on the wrong side of the redrawn border? We must think about political solutions to problems that manifest themselves in terrorism at a price to not only Ireland but the areas covered by the Act.
It is appalling that the Labour party has made no sensible, civilised contribution to the argument. I should be glad to see the Labour party voted down in every constituency in the general election because it appeases terrorist violence.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I start by reinforcing the appreciation expressed of the excellent work that Viscount Colville's has done yet again. Whether we agree with his conclusions or not, we find the information that he provides helpful and his conclusions persuasive.
I have spoken on several of these occasions. They are always occasions for regret on two grounds. The first is the necessity to discuss terrorism yet again, which continues to cause death and misery. The second is that, unfortunately, party political differences are a familiar feature of these debates. That has occurred now for several years. Perhaps I should make it clear now that I support the order and I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for it if there is a Division later.
When we talk about terrorists, we always try, rightly in my view, to discuss their crimes as if they were ordinary crimes committed by ordinary criminals. For they are ordinary crimes. Terrorists do not deserve the distinction of being treated by the courts as criminals in any way other than the ordinary. Murder is murder, for whatever reason


it is committed. When we examine how we deal with criminals, it is right that we should consider as such the form of the ordinary crime that they commit.
The House knows that I have had a reasonable amount of experience in the past 20 years of dealing with what one might call ordinary criminals. It is my experience, and that of other legal practitioners, that the usual criminal—even if he is a murderer or an armed robber—does not look beyond the moment when the crime has been completed and he has made his escape. He does not imagine that he will be caught or convicted. Appeals could not be further from his mind.
The psychology of the terrorist is different, and it is right that we should take that into account when determining what special measures outside the court system are necessary to deal with terrorism. The terrorist is trained to assume that he may be caught, and that when caught he will be questioned at great length and will be subjected to the rigorous questioning which is right and proper in respect of all serious crimes. The terrorist is trained to deal with the trial which may take place, with the tactics of defence, and, in some cases, he may well be trained to deal with the consequences, in a number of different forms, of conviction. We must bear those matters in mind in weighing the balance and considering whether it is necessary to retain the provisions for yet another year.
Also, we should all recognise that the Government have a difficult task. We have already heard from hon. Members, good democrats on both sides of the argument, who believe in the essentials of justice and security. These are surely our shared aims in this debate. There are some good democrats in the House who believe—as some Conservative Members believe—that internment would be a fair and just way to deal with the problem. I happen to disagree with that, but it is a respectably held view. There are good democrats in the House who believe that the principle of special and specific prevention of terrorism legislation is contrary to the principles of democracy which we try to uphold in the House. That poses a serious dilemma for the Government, and one must be reasonably sympathetic towards the ordeal of solving it.
Of course, we must all share the aspiration of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that it should become easier to convict terrorists in our courts. However, I would ask him how we are going to make it easier to convict terrorists without diluting the standard of proof which we adopt or reducing the quality of evidence which is acceptable in our courts.

Mr. Hattersley: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Carlile: I shall give way when I have finished this point. I remind the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook that, whatever happens during interrogation when someone is detained under the prevention of terrorism Act, evidence obtained as a result is most unlikely, in modern times, to be admitted in a subsequent criminal trial. Judges are unlikely to admit evidence which does not comply in quality with the standards of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Under section 78 of that Act, the judge has residual discretion—which is usually

exercised in such circumstances—to exclude the evidence. I share the aspiration of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, but he has not told us how he will achieve it.

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. and learned Gentleman has answered his own question. I was repeating the argument made by the chairman of the Bar Council—it was also argued in the letter from the commissioner—that there would not be sufficient convictions unless jurors and courts were convinced that the available evidence had been properly obtained. The point that the hon. and learned Gentleman has just made is the one that I want to be reinforced.

Mr. Carlile: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. However, it follows from his argument, and from the point that I sought to make, that many terrorists will pass unconvicted and uncharged because of the quality of the preparation of their crimes. They are often arrested under the prevention of terrorism provisions when, at worst, they have been involved in inchoate crimes and it is impossible to pin any specific offence on them. Unfortunately, the law is inadequate to deal with that sort of problem.
It is encouraging that there has been less use of exclusion orders as far as Northern Ireland is concerned. It is a matter of real concern that there appears to be an increase in international terrorism, which is reflected in the increase in exclusion orders relating to international terrorism. I hope that the Government will continue to tackle that problem through international co-operation, which remains extremely important in driving such terrorism away from our shores at least. We have a legitimate interest in driving it elsewhere. We hope that others who co-operate with us in the international effort will ensure that it is driven into those places from which it cannot escape to perpetrate its dreadful activities.
The issue before the House is how, when balancing difficult conflicting interests, and bearing in mind the concern that we all have for justice and security, do we produce a practical solution which meets the twin requirements of public safety and public confidence overlaid, as ever, with the need for justice and security? There may be better ways to supervise detention orders. I think that putting them before judges sitting in chambers is the wrong way to deal with it and I am sympathetic with the judges on this issue. I understand that judges who had to deal with applications for internment orders, when they were in force, found that the type of evidence that they were asked to consider was difficult to deal with, not because the allegations made were unjustified but because they were unused to dealing with that type of evidence. Better protection is provided if one controls the circumstances of questioning and if outside, independent review is available on application, as is currently the case.
I do not share the fear that the tape recording of interviews during detention necessarily represents a danger. If tape recordings could be used as evidence for one side or the other in any criminal proceedings which subsequently ensued, that danger might arise. However, the Government would be entirely justified in introducing standard tape recording for all interviews of the type that we are discussing, and in introducing statutory rules so that those interviews could never be used as evidence in ensuing criminal proceedings. That would not mean that evidence obtained as a result of them could not be used, as it is already. However, it would be in the public interest


that those interviews should be excluded from the court: otherwise, there could be a danger that they might be used by members of the public who were listening to the evidence in the court.
I know that a number of other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall not take up any more time. We hope that next year, the year after or soon after we will be able to say that prevention of terrorism provisions are no longer needed. It has not happened yet. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook knows that I have a great regard for him, but I fear that we heard him make a speech that he did not want to make. If a Labour Government were elected, they would have considerable difficulty with this matter. Indeed, I suspect that they would feel compelled to change their view.

Sir Giles Shaw: I regret that this is the first time that I have participated in the debate on the renewal of the powers in the Act. I am grateful to follow the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). who, with his ever-present legal knowledge, has dissected some of the problems occasioned by bringing terrorist crimes to court. I shall consider the issues from a broader platform without, I hope, straying out of order.
I accept that the PTA was introduced in a rush and was designed as an anti-IRA measure. It defined terrorism almost exclusively as the particular problems caused by that organisation in the United Kingdom. The Act was introduced to deal with such problems. It contains powers, which are broadly acceptable, to detain, to proscribe certain organisations, to exclude, and to control movements; and, as a consequence of all that, it aims to deter.
In the application of each of those elements of the Act there have been difficulties. It is not unreasonable for the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) to say that the Act suppresses more than it prevents and that perhaps, from time to time, it has not suppressed terrorism either. However, the degree and temperature of suppression have altered from time to time.
The issue today is different. Terrorism has become an international cancer and has required and obtained co-operative efforts on the part of police forces through international joint detection. Terrorism requires large amounts of finance and covert activity by those prepared to connive with its objectives. Terrorism hides behind the cloak of pseudo-political respectability and, it has been said that it pursues aims that cannot necessarily be achieved by the political means available at any time.
It is its political objectives which make terrorism different from the ordinary range of crime, which was considered by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery in his discussion of applications of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
The political credibility, or otherwise, of terrorism has undergone a significant change in recent years. The threat posed by so-called middle eastern terrorism has been reduced considerably. Certainly, the threat to capture hostages has receded during the past 12 months, not always for political reasons although political machinations were involved. The tide of the terrorism in the middle east has ebbed and it is no longer the necessary card to play. The threat from continental terrorist groups, be they the Red Brigade, the Red Hand or ETA, has also ebbed.
That may not be the result of legislation such as this, but that threat has ebbed. The crucial factor has been the withdrawal of public support and the reduction in the numbers of those willing to connive with the terrorists, hide them, finance them and supply the weapons of destruction so essential to them. Public opinion in most of the world has moved against such vicious activity.
The debate does not deal with matters such as internment, nor should it. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is, as ever, in his place. We have to consider how far we can go with the orthodox route of bringing terrorists to justice before considering the unorthodox. I doubt whether the terrorist movement can be wholly subservient to the rule of law, but we have always regarded the rule of law as an essential weapon with which to bring the terrorist to book.
If the terrorist is professional, proficient and trained in his particular vicious form of behaviour, he has already moved way beyond the ordinary legal system. We already have the Diplock courts in the Province, which demonstrate that the terrorist is treated as a special case when tried there. That is why we are now discussing the renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act in relation to terrorists who seek to enter the United Kingdom and those who are found here.
We have been extremely concerned in this debate about the minutiae relating to the application of the principles enshrined in the Act in terms of so-called forensic evidence produced for a jury in a British mainland court. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said that it would be extremely difficult to obtain a conviction under the full panoply of PACE if the terrorist were in the dock. He is probably right. Convictions against various groups who were brought to court in previous years—in the Birmingham case, the Guildford case and, to a large extent, the Maguire case—have been found to be without adequate foundation. How can we say that the rule of law has been effective even when it has been applied here and in circumstances less pressurised than those that exist today?
My right hon. Friend should be aware, however, that there is no question about the necessity for the PTA. We must ensure that we can use every weapon in the panoply of weapons against the insidious crime of terrorism. Such legislation must be in place and, if necessary, renewed year by year.
The climate of opinion is now looking beyond the PTA and even beyond the courts—it has become proactive rather than reactive. If detention were introduced in the Province for a time, I do not believe that that would produce the same violent reaction in the United States as it did many years ago. I do not believe that it would result in the same sharp rise in contributions to Noraid, and I do not believe that its introduction would have quite the same impact across the border in the Republic.
There has been a massive change in public opinion in the Republic about the IRA. How good it was that it could not hold its Ard Fheis in what it traditionally regarded as its rightful venue. How good it is that the general performance of Sinn Fein in the Republic has commanded less than 2 per cent. of the popular vote at general elections. Public support for the IRA has gone right down, and there is a greater realisation that to deal with the cancer that is embodied north and south of the border may require a different attitude to the niceties of the rule of law.


The climate of opinion is such that a more positive attitude towards detention would be perfectly acceptable. Such thinking certainly did not exist a few years ago.
I remind the House that terrorism today is an international problem. It is a cancer in many countries, and in each it depends upon public support of one kind or another. That support in terms of access to funds, training and weaponry has waned greatly. It may well be time for a brave new initiative on this matter.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: I accept the sincerity with which all hon. Members who have spoken have approached the problem of terrorism in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom generally. However, we differ on how the problem should be approached.
The re-examination of the Act must be done in several contexts. First, we must assess the balance between the deprivation of basic rights within the law and the need to prevent further terrorism. Secondly, there must be a balance between the effect on the judiciary and the effect on the body politic. If a law is so draconian in its nature and application that it drives a population away from supporting that law, or from supporting the agencies that implement the law, a negative situation results.
I assume that the purpose of this debate is to assess all the contributions made with respect to the maximum of justice and the safeguarding of the rights of the individual before the law, paying constant attention to the need for political progress and dialogue. That is why it is a great pity that an opportunity has not been taken to look seriously at what the effect has been in the lifetime of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974 and examine those parts of it that statistics and comments clearly show are not doing the job for which the Act was intended.
I was not a Member of Parliament when the legislation was enacted. However, irrespective of the fact that some hon. Members warned about the possible consequences, it is important that the Act is examined to avoid the alienation that might take place, and to avoid the unnecessary withdrawal of human rights in a situation where terrorism has become endemic, as it has for the past two decades.
I represent a community which has suffered most both from Provisional IRA and loyalist terrorism. We have been the recipients of both sides of the sword. We are constantly visited by the terror of the Provisional IRA and the paramilitaries. We are also visited, willy nilly, by the consequences of the PTA in our homes and our communities. The enforcement of the Act deprives us of the protection that people normally have for their homes and their families.
The Act is a broad weapon and is not selective in any way. If a housing estate in my home town is cordoned off and searched from beginning to end, that must mean that the vast majority of the people living there are innocent. Yet they suffer alongside those who are guilty. Many people will accept that up to a point, but, beyond that point, the support is lost and thus the thrust of what the Act is intended to achieve is also lost.
I wish to illustrate the problems of searching housing estates. Individual members of a family are retained in one corner of the room of their house and are not allowed to

accompany the security forces in the examination of the house. In most cases that does not involve helping them to open or close cupboard doors or look into drawers. It sometimes involves considerable destruction. Some would argue that that is necessary destruction, but sometimes floorboards are pulled up. People are naturally suspicious if they are not allowed to accompany those pursuing that search because it is not unknown—I cannot give statistics —for stuff to be planted in certain places. There is, therefore, a built-in query about the need to be present when searches are taking place. Searches often take place as a result of a tip-off, many of which have proved to be malicious rather than designed to catch terrorists in the act.
One of the great difficulties with proscription is that it is totally selective. My understanding of the attitude of the security forces in Northern Ireland is that they could well do without proscription. It has been applied to the IRA, yet other organisations have acknowledged murders, extortion and all the other attributes of terrorism. Those organisations include the Ulster Volunteer Force, its pseudonym the UDA, the Protestant Action Force and several other organisations.
Proscription has a peculiar effect on the psyche of some of our people. They feel that not only does it not help the security forces, because the name of an organisation is simply changed, or, when it is executing terrorist violence, it simply uses another nomenclature to perpetrate its violence, but because it sometimes glorifies the organisation that has been proscribed. It draws in young people who see being a member of that organisation as some sort of thrill or illegality, long before they are sucked into the real violence for which they are then trained and asked to perpetrate. Therefore, that element of proscription has no meaning within the terms of combating terrorism.
Exclusion orders have also been mentioned.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I know that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead the House, but he seems to say that the Ulster Volunteer Force is not proscribed. It is proscribed under this legislation.

Mr. McGrady: Yes, it is one of the three proscribed organisations in Northern Ireland. But many others by other names are executing violence on a daily basis. They are not proscribed and the security forces see no need for it.
Much debate has taken place this evening about the consequences of the exclusion orders. They have been referred to several times as some sort of internal exile. I do not know what that phrase means, but it is contradictory in terms of uniformity of rights of the citizens of the United Kingdom if people can be deported from one part to another, irrespective of what that part is. In reality, it is considered not as an internal exile but, rather, an exercise of racism. One of the major features of the exclusion orders is to give a sense of racism in the application of the PTA, which seems to be anti-Irish. It does not matter whether someone is British Northern Irish or Irish Northern Irish—they are Northern Irish, therefore Irish, and the Act will apply against them.
The statistics of people who have been detained and not excluded show that another effect is to put a black mark against them. I have known cases in my constituency involving firms with contracts in England. They have lost those contracts and their work force in England as a result


of being detained, despite the fact that they were found to be innocent. They were detained on somebody's whim without reference to a court of law. That is wrong in principle and legally. It is self-defeating because it gives ammunition to the men of violence to heighten tensions and to draw into their ranks recruits from those who have suffered from such detention.
The Home Secretary referred to the broadcasting ban. I opposed it bitterly when it was introduced in the House and it has become a total charade in Northern Ireland. I do not know whether it applies as much on television here, but it is farcical to see the Protestants or the IRA making unchallenged statements through an actor's voice, with printed subtitles, when the interviewer or a member of the political community in Northern Ireland cannot challenge them. We are at the coal face of the struggle against terrorism, both physical and political. I want to be able to use a platform, whether of the media or any other form, to argue the toss and put my case against the terrorists. I want to illustrate the evil, illogicality and fallacy of the position and policies of those trying to indoctrinate communities. The ban is preventing me from doing so. It is time my colleagues and I had our hands untied from behind our backs in terms of the political dialogue, never mind the fight against violence in the streets.
The powers of arrest and continuing detention over a number of days are symptoms of over-reaction. The aftermath is many disgruntled innocent people—and their dissatisfaction spreads among friends, families and communities—who see themselves being targeted because they are Irish and come from Northern Ireland. In a sense, it is a mini-internment.
It has been argued that the corollary of not having convictions in court must be internment. The argument is then carefully qualified by the statement that, of course, one is talking about selective internment, but all internment is selective and always has been. Someone, somewhere, says that Joe Bloggs should be interned, because of certain information. The person being interned is not aware of the charge and has no right of redress to correct the information on the record.
There is much incorrect information on people's records. Many people lose their jobs due to telephone calls to security forces alleging their involvement in terrorism. They find themselves out of a job the next day with no way of getting the job back. They have no way of knowing what they are charged with or of denying the alleged offence.
There has been a missed opportunity this afternoon. The Act was a political response to a specific occasion at a particular time in history. In the intervening years it has not received the attention and detailed examination that it required so that we could extract the bad parts and leave the acceptable parts. The Act should have been improved and changed in the light of experience, in terms of both security and policies. The Act drives people way from public support. It makes no contribution to the fight in which we are all engaged, from whichever source it conies. It is a great pity that the opportunity has not been taken today or on previous occasions to redraft those parts of the Act which have proved to be counter-productive in the fight against terrorism.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: A sense of déjà vu descends over the seasoned debaters of the merits or otherwise of the prevention of terrorism Act. We have been through such debates before, but this time there seems to be greater confrontation and controversy than before. For my part, I do not doubt the sincerity of Labour Members' opposition to terrorism and their determination to fight it. However, I believe that they are profoundly mistaken in their line of reasoning. Here lies the acceptable and right debate.
I wholeheartedly support the renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act as long as the exceptional circumstances in Northern Ireland continue and it is necessary to have such a measure.
Three issues in Lord Colville's report deserve attention. The first relates to a number of references to international terrorism. On page 5, under the heading, "Extensions of detention", he writes:
In England and Wales three sets of applications concerning international terrorism were dealt with by the Home Office".
Perhaps understandably, we tend to preoccupy ourselves with Irish terrorism and overlook the international dimension. Will the Minister give details about the international aspects of terrorism referred to in the report?
The second point concerns the most disturbing feature of the report: the section on terrorist finances. Last year Lord Colville referred to a "legislative shambles". This year he stated on page 15:
The 'legislative shambles' was only enhanced by the EPA 1991 … I would be failing in my duty if I did not record the pessimism of police forces in all three United Kingdom jurisdictions about the usefulness of the PTA powers in relation to terrorists funds.
This section clearly demands attention.
The third issue about which I am concerned relates to the 10 pages of comments Lord Colville gives to allegations of assaults in police custody. These make disturbing reading. On out-of-court settlements of claims Lord Colville states on page 19:
there is … danger that hundreds of thousands of pounds overall will be paid out without any of the actions being tried.
That undermines confidence in the RUC. He continues:
if the police are settling these cases, they are admitting ill-treatment of detainees".
This section also deserves close attention.
I believe that there has been a dimension missing from today's debate, without which our efforts to combat terrorism are weakened: the missing dimension is absence of unequivocal support from the Government of the Republic of Ireland. Without the wholehearted cooperation of the Republic, Irish terrorism is unlikely to be defeated, and that wholehearted support simply is not there.
For too long and on too many occasions, the Republic has provided a safe haven for IRA gunmen and bombers who are on the run. Its refusals to extradite have been scandalous. The Republic remains a secure operational base for the IRA. Articles 2 and 3 of the constitution of the Republic of Ireland, with their claim for Northern Ireland territory, are an intolerable affront to the United Kingdom. That scenario makes me, for one, deeply cynical of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
The question of internment is back on the agenda. The arguments against internment are well known and include


the fact that it is counter productive and creates an adverse reaction. It is ineffective unless implemented on both sides of the border. It also poses the question whether we have the intelligence to pick up the right people.
On the other hand, there is an argument for internment, although I am not necessarily stating that it should be implemented. At times of heightened terrorism there is an argument for selective, short-term internment. Internment destroys the command structures, the means of communication and the logistical planning of terrorist organisations as key people are lifted. It makes life very hard for the terrorist.
I welcome the renewal of the measure, which I believe forms a central part of our battle against terrorism.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: When the Home Secretary courteously gave way to me, he said that there had been no row between senior officials of the Home Office, led by Mr. Ian Burns, and the Metropolitan police, led by Assistant Commissioner Bill Taylor, on the one hand, and Mrs. Stella Rimington, on the other. Whether it was a row or a difference of opinion, there have certainly been consistent reports about a difference of opinion. This is a serious matter that deserves to be raised in the House.
We hear that security chiefs in MI5 are pressing Ministers to let them take over key functions in terrorist and criminal intelligence gathering from the police. The move, purportedly led by Stella Rimington, MI5's director-general designate, has provoked, if not a bitter row in Whitehall, at least a controversy over inter-service demarcation, and it has serious implications for civil liberties.
A formal inter-departmental review of MI5's post-cold war role was launched in Whitehall late last year under the chairmanship of the Home Office deputy secretary, Ian Burns. I understand that Mrs. Rimington has raised this matter with the Minister. Before anyone criticises those of us who mention her name, let it never be forgotten that, to my astonishment and that of some of my colleagues, it was the Government—no one else—who launched Mrs. Rimington with a fanfare of trumpets—

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dalyell: No; the hon. Gentleman has just come in.
I understand that Mr. Burns has held a series of meetings attended by Mrs. Rimington and other MI5 officers; by representatives of the Ministry of Defence and the joint intelligence committee which briefs the Prime Minister on intelligence matters; and by Assistant Commissioner Bill Taylor of the Metropolitan police, who is chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers.
I understand that Mrs. Rimington and her colleagues are seeking to take the lead in mainland operations against the Provisional IRA which are now directed by the Met's special branch and anti-terrorist squad. I understand also that senior police officers believe that those demands may be the thin end of the wedge and could lead to MI5's involvement in other areas managed by the police and Customs, such as organised crime and drug trafficking.
All this has brought to a head the long-standing rivalry between the police and MI5, with senior police officers

openly voicing reservations about MI5's operational competence and its lack of accountability. I am prepared to give the Home Office the name of one senior policeman who has expressed great concern about this to me.
A final decision about demarcation between the police and the security services will be taken by an ad hoc ministerial committee, including the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence. The concerns of senior police officers have been heightened by a general feeling that the future structure of the police may be on the agenda after the general election. Ministers have voiced a need to do something about rising crime and the loss of confidence in the police caused by recent miscarriages of justice.
Next month the new national crime intelligence service will begin work. Aided by a huge criminal intelligence super-computer, the service is supposed to serve various police forces and to enable the national co-ordination of information, especially on drugs and organised crime. Its constitution specifically precludes an operational policing role. If MI5 is allowed to wrest the lead in IRA terrorist work from the police, it will have full access to the computer.
Who will control the computer? A senior officer is quoted as saying:
The outcome, if MI5 gets its way, could be the creation of a sort of FBI, but by the back door. If they get terrorism, drugs will be next.
Specialist police units engaged in anti-terrorist intelligence fiercely resent the attempted intrusion. They believe that they are the intended victims of a Whitehall operation brought about by the end of the Soviet threat and by the obvious need for a new role for MI5. That is what the problem is mostly about.
Another police officer has been quoted as saying:
These people are often brilliant as analysts. But it is questionable whether they would do the job as the public want it to be done␣
I want it to be done—so do many of my colleagues—by a Home Office which is accountable to Parliament. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) will be the Home Secretary, but whoever is Home Secretary it is much better that the job be done by the Home Office than by those who are not accountable.
I raised the matter in this debate because it is so difficult to raise the activities of this vast organisation while remaining in order. I will keep to the undertaking that I gave to sit down at 6.35 pm. I do not raise this subject in a curmudgeonly way; I raise it in a deadly serious manner in the hope of some kind of serious answer—because Parliament deserves an answer.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: These annual debates are always interesting and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, it is interesting that this one has been brought forward. We welcome the chance that it offers us to discuss the prevention of terrorism. The Labour party detests, despises and hates terrorists and terrorism. We say that on every occasion we can. I am one of the few Members to have addressed a meeting in New York state which was picketed by Noraid, which was seemingly outraged that I should have the temerity to discuss democracy and how much it involves despising and hating people who use the bullet and the bomb for political gain.
This is a serious occasion because, on it, the Government traditionally ask us to suspend all the usual rules of political discourse. They ask us to suspend critical judgment on the workings of an important piece of legislation. But it is the role of Her Majesty's Opposition to scrutinise every piece of legislation that comes before this House.
It is just not good enough. My old friend the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) spoke, in one of his typical phrases, of hiding under the cloak of pseudo-political respectability. He used that phrase in a different context; I would use it to describe the dangers of the Government hiding under the cloak of respectability their ineffectiveness when dealing with terrorism.
As the Opposition, we have to look at the facts. We have to examine the success of the prevention of terrorism Act as used against terrorists and terrorism. Given the tragedies in the lives of men and women here and abroad caused by terrorism, we cannot afford to be complacent. Listening to the Home Secretary today, one would not have thought that nearly 100 men and women died by the hand of terrorists in our country last year, or that 1,000 people were badly injured by them.

Mr. Dicks: rose—

Mr. Sheerman: I will not give way.
It is no part of the job of Her Majesty's Opposition to remain silent when the Home Secretary says nothing, as he did not today, about the Government's appalling inactivity and failure to shed new light on the problem of terrorism and how to combat it.
During the three years that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook and I have been dealing with these matters, we have strongly appealed to the Home Secretary to the effect that the effort against terrorism has not been good enough—that we want it improved and that the PTA gets in the way of that effective struggle. The Minister of State sought to pour ridicule on the idea of all the parties coming together and saying, "How can we defeat terrorism?". We made such an offer last year and the year before, but the Minister thought that it would be ridiculous to have a committee discussing terrorism. Getting round a table to discuss a more effective way to stop death, misery and bloodshed seems a good starting point in the war against terrorism.
I do not wish to underline what the terrorists have done in too dramatic a way, but there have been 1,000 serious injuries and 100 people have died in our country in the past year. There was a rocket attack on No. 10 Downing street, and a bomb was found and, luckily, defused a few steps from the Palace of Westminster. We ask for a more effective effort against terrorism, and we have asked the Home Secretary to meet us round a table to discuss how that can be done.
The Opposition have not engaged in empty rhetoric. We have a number of proposals but, like any group sitting at a table, we do not expect to have all of them accepted. Our proposals could be effective, useful and helpful. We want to see a national police intelligence unit with an operational arm. I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who resists unaccountable intelligence services, but I would like to see that new force taking a new direction. Some people might

call it an FBI. So be it. We need an effective national presence that could better deal with terrorism nationally and internationally.
I agree with hon. Members who have spoken about the changing nature of Europe and its borders and who have expressed the fear that, because of that, terrorism will grow strongly in some parts of the European Community. That means that there must be better co-ordination.
We defend many elements of the PTA because they are useful, but other elements are unacceptable and we want the Government to give way on those. Our offer this year about talks is even better than the one that we made last year because we know that within a few weeks we shall be in government. When Conservative Members are on this side of the Chamber, we shall invite them to join in talks because we do not want to hide behind the PTA. We want to be honest.
Sometimes hon. Members on one side of the Chamber think that they are fully aware of the opinions of those on the other side and will, therefore, disagree with them. However, when one listens carefully one finds that that is not always the case. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) made some telling points about the myth of unity and the message that it sends to the terrorists. We are close to an election and it is easy to make cheap party political points and to say that the Opposition are soft on terrorism. That is what people call a cheap shot, and the hon. Member for Antrim, North spotted it straight off. He avoided it and put his finger precisely on the issue when he said that all the so-called unity on the PTA has not stopped terrorism in his constituency, in his part of the United Kingdom.
The Opposition will not be muzzled because the national interest and the interests of the people are too important. The only group of people who have not risen to the occasion and whose speeches have not been thoughtful, searching and honest about the problem of terrorism are those in the small group of party political hacks led by the Home Secretary.

Mr. Dicks: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it right for the hon. Gentleman to make such hypocritical points when on Friday, in my constituency, he shared the police station with a known IRA supporter?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The hon. Gentleman is fully aware that I cannot deal with that. It is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Sheerman: To deal with that we would need men in white coats.
Conservative Members do not like our truthful message. We deserve more from the Home Secretary and the Government than the cheap political trick that they have tried to play. The British people are not daft. They can see through a Government who are desperate because their law and order policies have failed. Crime has doubled since they came to office, and their measures against terrorism are not working. The British people will not be fooled, and in a few weeks they will elect a Government who will deal effectively with terrorism.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): The political and intellectual content of the speech by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) could be boiled down into about one minute 30 seconds. It is a pity


that at the beginning of the debate 19 minutes were wasted on entirely bogus points of order. That meant that a number of hon. Members could not be called to speak. I regret that procedural methods were used to make it impossible for my hon. Friends to be called. I am extremely pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), have been in the Chamber for most of the debate. That shows the importance that they attach to the issue.
Most people who listened to the formidable speech by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will have noted that he completely and utterly destroyed Labour's case for a "Let's solve the terrorist problem by remitting it all to a committee" approach. It is clear to me and to the country that only a small number of people support the abolition of the prevention of terrorism legislation. Opinion poll after opinion poll has shown that no more than three people in every 100 who responded support Labour's policy to get rid of the PTA. The overwhelming majority of British people support the Act. I am extremely grateful for the indication of support from the hon. Members for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who spoke for the Ulster Unionists, and for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who spoke for the Democratic Unionist party. I am also grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) for his support for the renewal of the provision.
Opposition Members who vote against the renewal of the Act will fly in the face of the general opinion of moderate, sensible people of all political parties in Britain. It will also give enormous help and sustenance to the terrorists. I hope that I quote correctly the hon. Member for Antrim, North who said that if the legislation was not renewed the wrong signal would be received throughout the United Kingdom, western Europe and the international network of terrorism, both Arab and Irish, that the House was not serious about the prevention of terrorism. Such a single, simple message would be extremely destructive.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Patten: I shall not give way.
Before I respond to the two Opposition suggestions, I must read into the record, as if I were a Democrat or Republican Senator speaking in the United States Senate, the second half of the letter from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Sir Peter Imbert, which was partially quoted by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) who spoke about what Sir Peter said about tape recording. The commissioner said:
The contrary view, which reflects the present position, is that the risk to life, and loss of intelligence, is so great that it would be a serious impediment to our efforts against terrorism. I am aware that this is particularly the case in Northern Ireland, and I believe that there is, understandably, very firm opposition there, on these grounds, to tape recording.
The last paragraph of the letter states:
As mentioned above, the pilot scheme with the tape recording of summaries of PTA interviews continues, and I look forward to reaching a stage where conclusions can be drawn from this. Until we have reached that position and are

more certain of the implications I believe it would not be right to pursue legislative changes. I would add that before any such change is comtemplated we should also ensure that the present judicial safeguards relating to the disclosure of intelligence information are made more robust.
Let me now turn to what the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook described as two major suggestions.

Mr. Hattersley: There were four.

Mr. Patten: I am quoting the right hon. Gentleman's words. He must read what he said in Hansard tomorrow.
The first, and major, suggestion was the setting up of a tribunal to review extensions of detention. There is a difficulty with that proposal. If we establish a tribunal—or any kind of judicial supervision of applications for extensions of detention—its conclusions will often be based on strong intelligence that the person concerned is actually involved in terrorism. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will know that that is the case, and that such intelligence often exists.
That means that the sensitivity of the information will often be such that, if the case went to a tribunal and was considered by a judge or a group of judges, neither the detained person nor his legal advisers could be given any details of that case. If we acceded to the Opposition's suggestions, there would be no proper means of representation. The judge, or the chairman of the tribunal, would effectively be sitting in an executive position, just as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary does at present: he would, de facto, be like my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Hattersley: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Patten: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not; if I give way, I shall not have time to answer the points that have been made.
The present system does not preclude judicial control. I think that the right hon. Gentleman missed that point. A person who is arrested under the Act has access to a solicitor, and can challenge the lawfulness of the arrest or detention by means of, for example, the remedy of habeas corpus. I should also point out that there is no quasi-judicial system in Scotland for the consideration of extensions of detention north of the border. Such extensions are considered in exactly the same way as they are throughout the rest of the United Kingdom: there is no special arrangement for Scotland.
The second major point concerned the abolition of exclusion orders. I do not think that that proposal gained much support, except from Labour Members. I know that, in his 1987 review, Lord Colville opposed such orders, and we have, of course, examined what he has said. He has suggested an alternative, to which we paid close attention: he suggested that surveillance operations could be mounted on people who would otherwise be excluded.
Currently, 91 people are excluded under exclusion orders. If Lord Colville's proposal were adopted, it would require a massive surveillance operation involving considerable use—and, in my view, misuse—of police and intelligence work that could be better turned to dealing with real terrorism on the ground. That is why we are entirely committed to fighting terrorism in the most practical way possible, and why we have not acceded to either Lord Colville's suggestions or those of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery made that point very powerfully—not in his speech, which, as


always, will repay reading, but earlier, in an intervention on the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. He said that, if it was a case of balancing the lowering of standards of proof in courts of British law against exclusion orders, he would come down in favour of exclusion orders every time. I think that most of us who want to see the innocent declared innocent and the guilty declared guilty would agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman.
I was much taken with what the hon. Member for Upper Bann said about the messages that would be sent from the House of Commons in the event of a substantial vote against the Act. He is quite right: people would simply say, "They are not serious." That theme of seriousness was followed by all Conservative Members who spoke.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler)—who was heard with the respect with which we always listen to his speeches—began by making it clear that it would be wrong to make available, through open court or open tribunal, information that would help terrorists. He also pointed out the extreme importance of the prevention of terrorism Act to our efforts to deal with international terrorism unconnected with Ireland. That was reflected in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter); I shall write to him about the details of the point that he raised.
I do not know whether the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) was one of the last that we shall hear from him, but, my word, it was a good one. As for my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), I can only say that I welcomed his support, and his thoughtful and thought-provoking speech about setting Irish terrorism, and the problems of the security services in this country, against the changing and multiplying, ameoba-like nature of international terrorism. My hon. Friend put his finger right on the point.
The prevention of terrorism Act is the only mechanism the House of Commons has with which to enable immigration procedures to deal with potential threats of international terrorism. Apart from anything else, the Act is needed to protect the three quarters of a million Irish citizens who are living on this side of the water—within the United Kingdom itself. I believe that Labour's commitment to combating terrorism would be much better reflected in support for the Act than in suggestions of ways in which to undermine it, but such suggestions are all that we have heard from Labour Members this afternoon.
Comfortable condemnation from the Opposition Benches is not an adequate substitute for such support. Labour must weave words, of course, but it must also will the means for our security forces to deal with terrorism. To ignore the Act would be to leave a vacuum for terrorists to exploit. We must have a policy in place to deal with terrorism.
Terrorists skulk behind innocent civilians: they always have done so. The terrorist language is the language of coercion. Hon. Members representing both sides of the divide in the Province know that all too well, and I respect them and their communities for the way in which they have handled the problem. The House of Commons does not like coercion; it stands as a place of democracy. We must proceed by open debate. The terrorists are not prepared to debate, because they know that, if they did, they would lose the debate overwhelmingly. That is why they respond with the gun—with coercion in place of persuasion.

Because we are a democratic society, we believe in a response that is subject to debate and to ratification by this freely elected House and regular review.
Since the Labour party dropped its support for the prevention of terrorism Act in 1983, it has spent nine wasted years, uttered thousands of words and produced not a policy but a policy vacuum within which terrorism can flourish. We spurn the Opposition's words. I commend the order to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 300, Noes 115.

Division No. 91]
[7.00 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Aitken, Jonathan
Cormack, Patrick


Alexander, Richard
Couchman, James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Amess, David
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Amos, Alan
Day, Stephen


Arbuthnot, James
Devlin, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Dicks, Terry


Aspinwall, Jack
Dorrell, Stephen


Atkinson, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Dover, Den


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Dunn, Bob


Baldry, Tony
Durant, Sir Anthony


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Eggar, Tim


Batiste, Spencer
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Evennett, David


Beith, A. J.
Fallon, Michael


Bellotti, David
Farr, Sir John


Bendall, Vivian
Fearn, Ronald


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Benyon, W.
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fishburn, John Dudley


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Fookes, Dame Janet


Body, Sir Richard
Forman, Nigel


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Boswell, Tim
Forth, Eric


Bottomley, Peter
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Franks, Cecil


Bowis, John
Freeman, Roger


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
French, Douglas


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Fry, Peter


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gale, Roger


Brazier, Julian
Gardiner, Sir George


Bright, Graham
Gill, Christopher


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gorst, John


Buck, Sir Antony
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Budgen, Nicholas
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Burns, Simon
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Grist, Ian


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Ground, Patrick


Carrington, Matthew
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carttiss, Michael
Hague, William


Cartwright, John
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Cash, William
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hampson, Dr Keith


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hanley, Jeremy


Chapman, Sydney
Hannam, Sir John


Chope, Christopher
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Churchill, Mr
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Harris, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hawkins, Christopher


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Hayes, Jerry


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney






Hayward, Robert
Page, Richard


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Paice, James


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hill, James
Patnick, Irvine


Hind, Kenneth
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hordern, Sir Peter
Pawsey, James


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Portillo, Michael


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Price, Sir David



Hunter, Andrew
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rathbone, Tim


Irvine, Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Irving, Sir Charles

Rhodes James, Sir Robert


Jack, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Jessel, Toby
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Roe, Mrs Marion


Kennedy, Charles
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Key, Robert
Rossi, Sir Hugh


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rost, Peter


Knapman, Roger
Rowe, Andrew


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Knox, David
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Latham, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Shelton, Sir William


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shersby, Michael


Lord, Michael
Sims, Roger


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


McCrea, Rev William
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


McCrindle, Sir Robert
Soames, Hon Nicholas


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Speller, Tony


Maclennan, Robert
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Squire, Robin


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maginnis, Ken
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Major, Rt Hon John
Steen, Anthony


Malins, Humfrey
Stern, Michael


Mans, Keith
Stevens, Lewis


Maples, John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Marland, Paul
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stokes, Sir John


Maude, Hon Francis
Summerson, Hugo


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Tapsell, Sir Peter



Mellor, Rt Hon David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mitchell, Sir David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moate, Roger
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Moore, Rt Hon John
Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Thorne, Neil


Moss, Malcolm
Thornton, Malcolm


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Tracey, Richard


Nelson, Anthony
Tredinnick, David


Neubert, Sir Michael
Trimble, David


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Trippier, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Norris, Steve
Walden, George


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wallace, James





Waller, Gary
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Walters, Sir Dennis
Winterton, Nicholas


Warren, Kenneth
Wolfson, Mark


Watts, John
Wood, Timothy


Wells, Bowen
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Wheeler, Sir John
Yeo, Tim


Whitney, Ray
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Widdecombe, Ann



Wiggin, Jerry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wilkinson, John
Mr. David Lightbown and


Wilshire, David
Mr. John M. Taylor.


NOES


Allen, Graham
Illsley, Eric


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Ashton, Joe
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Lamond, James


Barron, Kevin
Lewis, Terry


Battle, John
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
McCartney, Ian


Benton, Joseph
McGrady, Eddie


Bidwell, Sydney
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Blair, Tony
McLeish, Henry


Boateng, Paul
McNamara, Kevin


Boyes, Roland
Madden, Max


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Meacher, Michael


Caborn, Richard
Michael, Alun


Callaghan, Jim
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Canavan, Dennis
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Mullin, Chris


Cohen, Harry
Murphy, Paul


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Nellist, Dave


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
O'Brien, William


Corbett, Robin
O'Hara, Edward


Corbyn, Jeremy
Patchett, Terry


Cousins, Jim
Pendry, Tom


Crowther, Stan
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Cryer, Bob
Prescott, John


Dalyell, Tarn
Quin, Ms Joyce


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Radice, Giles


Dixon, Don
Randall, Stuart


Dobson, Frank
Redmond, Martin


Doran, Frank
Rogers, Allan


Duffy, Sir A. E. P.
Rooney, Terence


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Ruddock, Joan


Eadie, Alexander
Sedgemore, Brian


Enright, Derek
Sheerman, Barry


Fatchett, Derek
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Short, Clare


Fisher, Mark
Skinner, Dennis


Flannery, Martin
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Foster, Derek
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Gordon, Mildred
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Soley, Clive


Grocott, Bruce
Stott, Roger


Hain, Peter
Vaz, Keith


Hardy, Peter
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Williams, Rt Hon Alan



Haynes, Frank
Winnick, David


Henderson, Doug
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hinchliffe, David



Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Tellers for the Noes:


Hoyle, Doug
Mr. Jack Thompson and


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Mrs. Llin Golding.


Hume, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 12th February, be approved.

London Docklands Railway (Lewisham, etc.) Bill (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): May I assist the House by saying that the Chair will put separately the Questions on the London Docklands Railway (Lewisham, etc.) Bill and the London Docklands Railway (Lewisham, etc.) (No. 2) Bill to keep us in good order, but that it will be in order if hon. Members wish to relate their remarks on the No. 2 Bill to the Third Reading of the first Bill. It will also be common sense as the Bills are closely inter-related.

Mr. Martin Redmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to be helpful and to seek your guidance. I have a blocking motion on two of the private Bills. Following late representations from various people I now seek leave to withdraw the motions and to allow the two Bills to have a Second Reading if that is possible.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is helpful rather at the last minute, but what he said has been noted.

Mr. Neil Thorne: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The purpose of the London Docklands Railway (Lewisham, etc.) Bill which, for the convenience of the House, I shall refer to as the No. I Bill, is to permit the building of an extension of the docklands light railway from the Isle of Dogs under the River Thames to Lewisham via Greenwich. The extension will run from a relocated Mudchute station under the River Thames as far as Greenwich British Rail station. It will be elevated through the Deptford creek area and then continue at ground level and in cutting along the valley of the Ravensbourne river to Lewisham British Rail station.
The proposed stations for the extension will be at Mudchute and Island Gardens where the existing stations will be relocated; Cutty Sark, Greenwich where there will be an interchange facility with British Rail mainline services; Deptford bridge, Elverson road and Lewisham where, again, there will be an interchange with British Rail mainline services.
Both Bills are promoted by London Regional Transport. The No. 1 Bill was deposited in November 1990 and the London Docklands Railway (Lewisham, etc.) (No. 2) Bill in November 1991. The powers of London Regional Transport are set out in the London Regional Transport Act 1984, section 2 of which states:
It shall be the general duty of London Regional Transport, in accordance with principles from time to time approved by the Secretary of State and in conjunction with the Railways Board, to provide or secure the provision of public passenger transport services for Greater London.
The Act also confers the power to promote Bills.
Improving public transport accessibility is an essential requirement of the redevelopment process which is now well in hand in docklands. The initial railway legislation, authorised by the London Docklands Railway Acts 1984 and 1985, empowered London Regional Transport to construct the first stage of the docklands light railway from Tower Gateway to the Isle of Dogs and Stratford. London

Regional Transport then obtained powers in the London Docklands (City Extension) Act 1986 to extend the railway from Gateway to Bank.
Further extension was put in hand by the London Docklands Railway (Beckton) Act 1989 which authorised the extension of the railway from Poplar and Beckton and, most recently, the London Docklands Railway Act 1989 authorised further works at North Quay in response to the continuing expansion of the docklands light railway network, emphasising its central role in the continuing development of the docklands area.
The two Bills will authorise the next step in the development process which will help equip London for its role as a major world city. The development of docklands is a remarkable phenomenon. After years of stagnation and decline, the designation of the Isle of Dogs as an enterprise zone, the establishment of the London Docklands development corporation, the continuation and further expansion of the docklands light railway and a programme of road improvements have transformed docklands.
However, the transformation is not yet complete. In 1988, London Transport and the London Docklands, development corporation carried out a study of the public transport needs of the docklands area entitled "A Transport Strategy for Docklands". It identified a number of rail projects needed to support the development.
The extension of the docklands light railway to Lewisham was one of the schemes proposed by the study. The Lewisham extension seeks to fill as yet unmet needs in the transport network of docklands, Greenwich and Lewisham. Its primary role is to link the large residential areas south of the Thames to the growing development areas to the north and it will also provide alternative access to the City from the Greenwich and Lewisham areas and provide a direct link to Greenwich and Lewisham town centres from the north, greatly assisting in the improvement and development of the local community.
The area to the south of the river Thames has long suffered from being relatively inaccessible because of the barrier effect of the river. The development of many new employment opportunities in the docklands area will cause a further imbalance unless good river crossing links are provided.
The No. 1 Bill received an unopposed Second Reading in the House on 2 May. It was reported from the Opposed Private Bill Committee on 17 December and was considered, unopposed, on 15 January.
I do not intend to describe the Bill clause by clause, although the House may wish to be made aware of certain features. Although the Bills are promoted by London Regional Transport, it is intended that the construction and operation of the railway will be undertaken by the private sector. Although private sector involvement in the development of the docklands railway is well established, this is the first occasion on which the private sector will retain ownership of the works and will maintain a commercial interest in the operation of the railway after its construction.
The operator will operate the railway by means of a concession arrangement. Clause 33 of the No. 1 Bill provides the necessary mechanism for the Secretary of State to transfer from LRT to a concessionaire the functions to enable it to construct or operate, or to construct and operate, the railway extension. Such funding has the advantages of easing the burden on the public


purse at a time when there are many competing demands for new transport projects, and of giving the benefits from the involvement of private sector enterprise and expertise.
The need to deposit the No. 2 Bill has arisen because, since the deposit of the No. 1 Bill, clause 33 has been found to be inadequate inasmuch as it would not authorise the Secretary of State to provide for the transfer of functions to cease to have effect after a specified period or, in specified circumstances, to secure the transfer of functions back to LRT if the person to whom the railway was transferred failed to operate the railway efficiently and safely, or otherwise failed to discharge his functions properly. The No. 2 Bill addresses that aspect of the proposed arrangements and is commended to the House. Hon. Members may also wish to be aware that the No. 1 Bill is deposited with the backing of the London Docklands development corporation, together with that of the London boroughs affected.
When the No. 1 Bill was in Committee, the Government announced that they had it in mind to direct the corporation to transfer ownership of the whole of docklands railway to the LDDC. Before making such a direction, the Government consulted LRT, the local authorities through whose areas the railway runs and the boroughs of Lewisham and Greenwich through which the railway for which authorisation is sought in the principal Bill would run. The Government have not announced a decision following that consultation.
If the transfer takes place, LRT proposes that promotion of the Bill should be transferred to Docklands Light Railway Ltd, the operators of the docklands railway. Such a transfer will probably take place after the No. 1 Bill has gone to another place and until then LRT will continue with the promotion of both Bills.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Who is paying for the promotion of the Bill? Is it LRT? If it is, is it not a bit bad that halfway through the railway could be transferred to the LDDC while the cost of the Bill would fall on LRT? The fare payers of London would end up paying for it.

Mr. Thorne: The hon. Gentleman need not worry too much because I am sure that a suitable accounting procedure will be discovered for working out the costs and that that will be taken into account.
I emphasise that the decision to transfer the docklands light railway to LDDC has no bearing on the merits of the scheme. The extension will greatly improve the access to and from large parts of docklands for the benefit of residential and commercial regeneration throughout the area. I am sure that hon. Members whose constituencies will be served by the railway are well aware of the potential benefits. I believe that it is in everyone's interests for the No. 1 Bill to be given its Third Reading and for the No. 2 Bill to be given its Second Reading so that the considerable benefits will not be missed.
My hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) and for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples), who are not able to take part in the debate because of their ministerial office, have asked me to make clear their enthusiasm for the Bill. I am sure that the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) will make her views known in due course.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: I shall need to speak a little longer than I usually do to put the case for my constituents. I hope that you will bear with me, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I have a raging sore throat and I do not know how long my voice will last. I excuse my anti-social behaviour in spreading germs around the Chamber. My constituents are so concerned about the Bill, which they consider to be the last straw, that I feel that their point of view must be put here.
We feel that the Bill is premature. The present railway does not run properly. When it was introduced, my constituents were told that there would be a light railway which would be quiet and which would give them transport, and they welcomed it. Over four years, the railway has deteriorated so considerably that life has become a nightmare for all the people living along the railway—so much so that they have formed an organisation called Residents Against Noise and Pollution. Some 2,000 of them have signed a petition asking that something be done about the noise. The residents say:
The noise from the DLR is increasingly affecting the lives of residents along the line. Their health, as well as their daytime performance and behaviour, is deeply affected through lack of sleep and constant noise aggression.
When the residents heard that the DLR would be handed over to the London Docklands development corporation, they approached Eric Sorensen and expressed their problems and worries. His answer was in part sympathetic, but it ended:
Perhaps I should end with something of a warning. The noise of this railway is partly inherent to its design, construction and the type of vehicle. You will appreciate that it would be extremely expensive to put this right and it would not be easy to find the right balance between the interests of running the railway and local residents.
In other words, if it costs too much, local residents will just have to suffer. Tough luck!
People in Lewisham and Greenwich, who are probably looking forward to improved transport facilities as we did on the Isle of Dogs, should seriously consider what has happened and how the railway has deteriorated. They should also consider whether they want to support this form of transport or some other. We believe that the extension of the Jubilee line would be one solution. The East London line, which already goes across the river, could also be extended and the definite problems of south London in not having direct railway access to north London could be solved in a better way.
The Residents Against Noise and Pollution organisation says that the new sections of the railway are very noisy. The tracks are completely open from rail track level with no noise control. The interface of tracks and wheels is steel to steel.
Being designed as a light railway system, the wheels are not of heavy steel and are much noisier than heavy steel gauge systems.
The system, although designed as a light railway, is now required to function as a major system with longer trains and more frequent services. It was designed for 1,500 passengers a day. It is planned, with the extension and with the two and three-unit trains, to carry 10 times as many passengers as planned—15,000. Clearly the railway will deteriorate much further. In four years of operation, the railway has deteriorated from being one that did not disturb people too much to one that is extremely noisy.
What will happen when it has to take a huge extra load? The metal wears out very quickly, consequently increasing noise. At a recent meeting in my constituency, officials from the docklands light railway told me, "It is bound to have worn down. After all, it has been in operation for four years." They have not yet found a quiet way of regrinding, and the regrinding will take place in two years out of every four. It is a nightmare for people living in the area.
The brakes are very noisy. Trains stop in between stations very often, so residents are submitted to brake noise not only at stations but elsewhere along the track, and at any time. The stations are basic in design and completely open and therefore any noise of trains stopping and starting spreads through the surrounding area.
Station announcements are by the tannoy system. Since its opening four years ago, the system has not yet been controlled. Announcements can still be heard in premises up to 200 yards from the station. At night, empty trains are relocated for the next day's service, so residents are subject to noise day and night. Maintenance takes place during the night, with the noise of steel grinding, ballast being shovelled, men shouting and so on. No measures seem to have been adopted to reduce noise from night works.
There is reverberation on surrounding buildings. The DLR travels through densely populated areas and very close to dwellings and high buildings. As the tracks are elevated and completely open, the noise spreads through the populated area and reverberates between the buildings, thus giving one the feeling of being in an echo chamber. The railway passes only a few metres away from many homes. At the DLR's opening, the noise problems were localised, but now they have become generalised all along the line.
I shall not continue with the list because I do not want to bore the House, but hon. Members will no doubt realise from what I have said that noise is a real problem which is getting worse and making life a misery for people all along the line. The answer from the LDDC is that it would cost too much to remedy the problem and that it is inherent in the design of the railway, and that nothing can be done. People in Lewisham and Greenwich and their representatives should he very wary about what they are getting: it may not be as welcome in a couple of years' time as it is, in theory, now.
I want to explain—I think it needs explaining—why people in my constituency feel that everything about the extension is negative. They do not want a railway that goes to Lewisham. All that the extension to Lewisham will mean is that the trains that they now catch to Island Gardens—and on which they can get a seat at present—will come from Lewisham full of people from Greenwich, Lewisham and as far away as Kent en route to the Bank. They will not even get a seat. They will have to suffer all the disruption of extra building and all the noise of an overused railway carrying 10 times as many people as it was originally planned to carry.
In 1971 the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), then Secretary of State for the Environment, flew over the area in a helicopter, and in 1979 the present Secretary of State did the same. They saw the river and saw disused docks on both sides and considered it one area —docklands. In fact, the river has always been a divide between north and south London. Any Londoner will tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that people north of the river hardly ever go south of the river. They would

probably drive round Paris with more equanimity than they would try to negotiate the badly signposted area south of the river. My constituents may use the foot tunnel to cross to Greenwich, which is very beautiful, but if they want to go shopping, they go to the street markets in Roman road, Crisp street and Stratford. For their entertainment, they go to the west end—up west, as east enders call it. They have nothing to gain from an extension of the railway to Greenwich. It will bring them nothing but hardship.
My constituents are also worried that the railway is to be handed over to the London Docklands development corporation. Clearly, London Transport has made a mess of the thing. It is probably well known everywhere that the trains often break down and that one may start a journey with a child or wheelchair only to find on the way back that the lifts are not working. There are no toilets, so people coming to the arena concerts pee in people's gardens and all over the place.
People have lost their contracts and lost days at work because of the malfunctioning of the railway. The more it malfunctions, the more trains are manned by drivers instead of being operated by the computer system; and the more open it is to human error, the less safe it is. The DLR is a four-year-old baby with teething problems, and to think of extending it before those teething problems are sorted out—if, indeed, they ever can be—is ludicrous.
The record of the LDDC in responding to local people's problems is pretty bad. Take the question of television. Thousands of people in my constituency have had no television reception for years because the LDDC, being able to give planning permission in the enterprise zone and having dictatorial powers, gave planning permission for Canary wharf within about two weeks. It took less time to get planning permission for that huge developement—the largest in Europe—than it takes to get permission to put a sign outside a fish and chip shop elsewhere. No one went into the ramifications—into the effect that it would have on local people.
It is said that television reception from the BBC's Crystal Palace mast to a swathe of homes in Poplar, Limehouse, docklands, Lea Bridge road, Walthamstow, Bow, Chingford, Enfield, Waltham Cross, Greenwich, Catford and Lewisham has been interfered with. I have been working for years now to get the BBC to put a new transmitter and also to get the money for aerials. People who had indoor aerials or aerials on their roofs that functioned very well find that they no longer function. The BBC has said that people must have a good-quality wide band or group E aerial and that set-top aerials are not recommended. Yet when I went to the LDDC—which, after all, is responsible, having given planning permission without investigation—all that it would give was £50,000 towards aerials. That is a drop in the bucket.
Many people still have no replacement aerials. One constituent who had the money to spare spent £225 on a new aerial and paid her licence fee, but her television is still not working very well. Pensioners—the people who need television most—cannot afford it. People are very worried about what will happen if the LDDC takes over the railway system, given that they found it so unresponsive to public concerns over television aerials.
The LDDC is supposed to consult the Dockland Forum—a body made up of a large number of community groups in docklands. Yet this year it has withdrawn the funding from the Dockland Forum so it will probably go


out of existence. So much for the LDDC carrying out its statutory obligation to consult. We do not feel that things will go well if the DLR is transferred to them.
My constituents have put up with the noise, dust and dirt from work on the existing railway for years. Now they are asked to put up with it for another three years. One of the parks that will be affected, Millwall park, still has debris from the original railway; Mowlams has not yet removed it. The changing rooms, showers and so on have never been put back into action. People are understandably cynical about promises to carry out repairs and restoration given what has happened in the past.
Our opposition is not root-and-branch opposition to the extension of public transport south of the river, but we do not accept that the DLR is the correct means of transport to adopt or that the Bill is the correct vehicle to enable it to be extended. We do not accept that railways should be privatised by private Bills. That has happened too often. Some of my constituents worked in Tilbury and saw the Tilbury docks privatised by private Bill. I suppose that British Rail could privatise itself in the same way, but it does not seem to me a fair or correct system.
The Bill presupposes a tripartite structure. It gives parliamentary authority and outline planning permission for the construction of the works specified and the deposited plans within the lines of deviation. The railway will not be built or run by the promoters.
The second part of the structure is the agreement which has not yet been published. That is called the concession agreement. It will enable the unnamed purchaser of the railway to design it, build it, operate it and make a profit from it. The third part is the No. 2 Bill to enable the powers of the promoter to be transferred to the concessionary company.
The concession agreement will not be laid before Parliament. We do not know what is going to happen. That is one of my main objections to the Bill. All the important details will be covered by the concession agreement. We do not know what the design will be and we do not know what the concession agreement will say about safety issues. We do not know what it will require in terms of fare structures, and we do not know what service will be required of the operator of the railway. We simply know what London Regional Transport says its position is, or was, in relation to the negotiations on the concession agreement.
There is nothing to stop the promoter from conceding points to the concession company and surrendering important points on those issues later. Parliament is being asked to approve a blank cheque.
The Bill went through Committee on the understanding that the promoter was London Regional Transport. We now know that the docklands light railway will be operated by the LDDC. However, we do not know what the LDDC will require and what commitments made by London Regional Transport will be picked up by the LDDC. As I have said, the record of the LDDC among my constituents is not good. It is over-bureaucratic and unresponsive to the needs of local people. It is not consulting properly.

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend is making an important point. The railway is effectively being privatised by a private Bill. Will my hon. Friend consider the procedure

because clearly that action is an important political step by the Government who are privatising the railway and handing it over to the LDDC? Is that the right method? Will she comment on the process of the Bill being presented by London Regional Transport and then the LDDC taking over the railway? The LDDC will be accountable to no one with regard to its running of the railway. Any future plans that the LDDC may have for the railway might be outside the rest of the rail and tube network.

Ms. Gordon: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is pernicious and creeping development that things are being privatised by private Bills. It is absurd to hand the railway over to the LDDC, which is supposed to be wound up in a few years' time and which has no knowledge or experience of transport. We have no idea what will happen or what the final result will be. We have no control over what is happening and, as I said before, Parliament is being asked to sign a blank cheque.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Before my hon. Friend proceeds with her speech, in which she is providing invaluable information to the House, will she elaborate on the question of consultation? I had not realised that there was an element of privatisation involved in the issue. Are my hon. Friend's constituents and other people aware of that?

Ms. Gordon: There have been meetings, but the question of privatisation has not been raised. People were more worried about the loss of amenities, the noise, dirt and what would happen to the park. They were concerned more about the noise of the existing railway and whether that would be worse. They were also worried about the LDDC controlling the line.
Hon. Members may not be aware that a further 1,000 of my constituents, as with RANAP—Residents Against Noise and Pollution—have organised themselves into SPLASH—the South Poplar and Limehouse Association for Safe Housing. They are suing LDDC because their lives have been blighted. They are surrounded by dirt, dust, noise and pile driving. They cannot cross the roads and local businesses are failing. I entered a local pub the other night and it was empty. The owners can no longer prepare food because the dust in the kitchen is uncontrollable. There are dust storms in summer and mud in the winter.
I have been told by people at the local medical centre that it treats more than two and a half times the number of asthma cases that it would expect. In addition, the nurse at the centre now devotes all her time to treating asthma patients and, in particular, children. Those cases are extremely difficult to manage. They cannot be managed with the usual inhalers. The nurse has told me that some asthmatic children wear masks in the local school. That is shocking.
Our community is expected to put up with all that. The developments have been carried out, but the needs of the community have not been considered. Canary wharf was planned when it was clear that the required infrastructure was not in place. Everything has been piled on at once and people are screaming for help.
A simple amendment to the Bill could impose a stringent requirement, but London Regional Transport has refused to concede it. The Bill allows the railway to deviate upwards to whatever extent is found necessary or


convenient except where it is constructed in a tunnel. "Constructed in tunnel" is defined in clause 2 as excluding any cut-and-cover tunnel. Where the railway line passes through Millwall park there is a cut-and-cover tunnel. The Bill as drafted will allow the eventual contractor of the works to build the railway line at ground level despite the numerous and voluble statements by London Regional Transport that it intends that the railway should be in a cut-and-cover tunnel. If that is the intention, and if LRT is not going to allow the eventual contractor to construct that part of the line in some other fashion if it is cheaper, why cannot LRT hind the construction company to build it in a cut-and-cover tunnel through a clause in the Bill?
We are not convinced that the promoters' statements will be adhered to. We do not know the identity of the concession company that will eventually build the railway line.

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend is making the serious point on behalf of her constituents that the line should be in a cut-and-cover tunnel rather than on the surface which would cause a lot of problems. Is not the arrangement whereby LRT presents a Bill which is then taken over the LDDC appalling? London Regional Transport will have no responsibility other than to present the first half of the Bill. It will set out the cheapest proposals that it can get away with. It will not accept clauses that care for the environment for which my hon. Friend and her constituents are arguing. At the end of the day, LRT will have no responsibility. Halfway through, the LDDC will take over. Is that not one reason why the environment is so neglected and why the procedure whereby control will pass from one organisation to another should not he allowed?

Ms. Gordon: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. He is absolutely correct.
The company that will build the railway will do so for profit—for private gain—not for public good. That will be the driving motive, and that is what we have been suffering from all along since the setting up of the LDDC and the unleashing of market forces.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the safeguards that she is seeking were in the Bill as a legal requirement, and that if her constituents did not have to depend on a generalised statement from administrators from time to time, she would be in a much better position to assure her constituents that the problems that they face would be diminished and removed once the Bill was passed? What my hon. Friend is seeking is a better Bill with adequate safeguards written on the face of it. General support for railways is shared by my hon. Friend and myself, but we cannot pass Bills that do not provide proper safeguards.

Ms. Gordon: Together with local residents, representatives of community groups and local councils, I have met London Transport representatives, the promoters and the Minister of Transport twice. He kindly viewed the area. I have said that the bottom line is that, if we have a guarantee in the Bill that it would be a cut-and-cover tunnel and that some money will be put up for a community trust to compensate the community for the serious loss of facilities and for the noise, dust and tensions and so on that will continue in the area which has had just about enough already, we would then reconsider our

attitude to the Bill, but nothing of the sort has been forthcoming. We have not been told to get lost—everybody has been very polite—but the final effect is, "Get lost."
We do not know what concession company will eventually build the railway. However, we know that the only limitation on what it can do will be imposed by the LDDC. We have absolutely no faith in the LDDC imposing satisfactory constraints. Its track record on planning decisions such as Canary wharf, the television issue that I mentioned and many other matters which I do not have time to mention gives little cause for confidence that the interests of local people will be taken into account or regarded in any way. It has been said that the LDDC has concentrated on regenerating the land, but the community has suffered and has not been regenerated—rather the opposite; its quality of life has deteriorated. The former chairman of SPLASH said that he never would have believed that his quality of life could deteriorate so far so fast. That says it all.
If it is cheaper to build the tunnel at ground level, one can fairly anticipate that that is what the company will do. If it is cheaper to build an ugly railway at a lower price, why not? The concession company is doing it only to make money. The LDDC is only encouraging it to build the railway because it wants to get people on and off the island and to Bank, not because it has the interest of islanders at heart.
We are told that all safety issues will be dealt with in the concession agreement. That procedure is wrong. We have not been told what the concession agreement will say about safety—it has not yet been drafted. We are told that the contents of the proposed concession agreement are commercially sensitive—that is the answer we always receive when we try to get at the real facts—and cannot be released, anyway.

Mr. Cryer: Is my hon. Friend saying that the safety aspect of the railway is not yet clarified and that, when approaches are made about such safety issues being negotiated in the concession agreement, people are fobbed off by the claim that the matter is commercial-in-confidence? I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that that is unacceptable because, by and large, railway safety standards are extremeley high. One would expect the highest possible safety standards to be put down on paper and made plain for all to see—perhaps as a schedule to the Bill—so that people know perfectly well what standards will be required from the concessionaires on this important subject.

Ms. Gordon: We know that the railways inspector places some constraints on the operation of railways, following the King's Cross disaster, but those conditions are more rigorous in the case of underground stations. In particular, underground stations must be manned at all times. The station plan for Island Gardens shows that it will be placed in a deep cutting, with a railway line emerging from the cut-and-cover tunnel on one side and disappearing into a tunnel on the other side. Only the station itself will not be underground.
There was a plan to make the new Island Gardens station the deepest cutting on the line, but there was a refusal to roof it over. The reason is that an underground station must be staffed. If the station is not roofed over, staffing costs will be saved. We know that that decision, for


instance, is generated not by safety considerations but purely by cost. Safety, particularly in Island Gardens, is a major issue. The station will be in the middle of a park. The railway does not run after 9 o'clock at night, but I presume that it eventually will. In winter it gets dark much earlier. That is a potential risk for women, and in the present climate, unfortunately, for Asians, particularly late at night.
Although we have asked the promoters to make the station an underground station with staff present, we get nowhere; they absolutely refuse. The present Island Gardens station is used—it is by the road—but the new Island Gardens station, which will be located in the middle of the park, will not be much used after dark. People, especially women and members of ethnic minorities, will be afraid to use it. That is another factor that we are not pleased with.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend recall that the very arguments that she is now advancing were raised during the passage of the British Railways (Penalty Fares) Bill and the London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill? Both bodies seek, and in the case of British Railways, I regret to say, have obtained, authority to substitute ticket machines for people. People can give help and guidance, assist mothers with young children, and assist disabled people rather more effectively than a ticket machine can. When people are in peril late at night, either because of racist attacks or because of attacks on women, the most vulnerable among our community, they will find no help because there are no staff at such stations. My hon. Friend is right to pursue the matter. I am astounded that any organisation should resist such claims today.

Ms. Gordon: I agree with my hon. Friend. The fact that they are replacing a usable station with what will be an unusable station in the middle of a park after dark is cause for concern, and it need not be if the promoters put a roof over it and spend money to have some railway staff present, but they will not do that because it is all on the cheap. The interests of the community come last. It is really a business railway to carry people in business hours; it is not to serve the community. That is the whole point.
Construction practice requirements will also be in the concession agreement. The local authority has limited powers to deal with noise and pollution infringements, but the precise standards which are acceptable will be contained in the concession agreement. Again, we have London Transport's views on what those levels should be, but they will still be subject to negotiation with the company that eventually constructs the railway. London Transport says that it will impose the same requirements on noise pollution that were imposed when the railway was first built. That has led to numerous complaints, with thousands of people demonstrating that the standards were not acceptable and that they are deteriorating very rapidly, even with the present figures relating to use of the railway, let alone the 10-fold increase in usage. The Bill could require acceptable standards out in the open now, but the promoters will not write in the standards. Once again, that makes us cynical and we feel that we cannot be certain about what is likely to happen.

Mr. Cohen: Does my hon. Friend think that the line will be for business men and civil servants or a cattle truck for

the typists and everyone else? Obviously the Government are into two-tier railway and tube systems. Which will this line turn out to be?

Ms. Gordon: I suspect that the business men will still roll up in their Rolls-Royces, if they can get round the traffic. The railway may well be a cattle truck line. That remains to be seen and depends on the amount of use of the railway and the frequency of the trains.
The noise levels generated by the railway in operation will also be the subject of negotiation on the concession agreement. The existing railway is noisy and disturbs the residents who live close to the line, so my constituents and I believe that the Bill should specify acceptable noise levels. The fact that the Bill does not deal with all the points that I have raised, which are essential to the community, makes it impossible for us to support it.
My constituents who have complained about the noise have found out that it has been possible to adapt the track so that the trains glide through Canary wharf silently. Full remedial action has been taken using Koln eggs and perhaps other equipment about which I do not know too much. One of the petitioners against the Bill, whose house faces a section of the railway which is extremely noisy, has been told that it is technically impossible to install the same equipment at the extension section near his house. Yet where it is necessary for business in Canary wharf, the trains glide through. When they go through the residential areas they clatter, bang and screech and people have to live with it.
Enforcement of the construction requirements and noise limits will be up to the promoters—the LDDC. Only they will have the power to enforce the contract which the operator of the railway enters into.

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend said that the promoters of the Bill were the LDDC. In fact the promoters are London Regional Transport. So who will enforce the contract? Will it be the LDDC? Or will the LDDC say that it is the responsibility of LRT? Or will LRT say, 'No, it is the responsibility of the LDDC"? The procedure is a mess. We need to be clear about who will have responsibility for the contractors. The sponsor should tell us that.

Ms. Gordon: The promoters are the LDDC because we are told that the railway will be transferred to the LDDC. The Government were unhappy about the way in which London Transport ran the railway—or failed to run it properly. Their solution is to hand it over to the LDDC. That will be a case of out of the frying pan into the fire.
We have no faith that the LDDC will enforce the contract that the operator of the railway enters into.

Mr. Cohen: We must clarify this point. Who will issue the contract in the first place? As the Bill is an LRT Bill, will LRT give out the contract in the first place? If so, and if LDDC takes over subsequently, surely LRT will not have powers to enforce the safety arrangements. Is there not a possibility of a muddle in this respect?

Ms. Gordon: There is a great possibility of a muddle. It will depend on how quickly the railway is handed over to the LDDC and whether it is handed over. As the Minister has told me that it will be handed over, I assume that that is right. So we have to assume, perhaps wrongly, that the LDDC with the local authority will have whatever limited powers are made available for controlling noise pollution.
The position is unclear and obviously unsatisfactory. The stations have not yet been designed. Again, that will be left to the concession company. We are in the dark about so much. Millwall park, where the works site will be, is valuable to local people. They do not want an ugly station built in the middle of it. I must describe the area to the House. There is little green space for the whole dense area. Some of it is near the Thames. Millwall park is much beloved and much used. A large part of it—about a third —will be used as a works site. There will be a great wall around the site and noise, dirt and dust will probably fly over the walls. So a good bit of the park that is left will not be usable either.
A small part of the park will be taken away permanently. The piece of land that has been offered to replace it is not satisfactory to my constituents. They do not feel that it is sufficient compensation. My constituents will lose the use of the park, the football pitches and various other facilities at the park for three whole years. In my opinion, they will also lose the use of Island Gardens. Apart from a little pocket handkerchief further up the Isle of Dogs, Island Gardens is the only nice bit of riverfront that ordinary people can look at. Perhaps people in luxury flats and those with an office in Canary wharf can see the river, but Island Gardens is the only place that ordinary residents can enjoy.
Barges to take away the spoil from the tunnel will start at Island Gardens. An eight-foot fence will have to be put up. The beauty of Island Gardens is that one can see Greenwich from there. One can see the Wren complex and all the other beautiful buildings of Greenwich. It is a lovely view. Residents will not be able to enjoy that for three years.
The conveyor belt to take away the spoil will be very long. It will be high in the air—high enough for a double decker bus to go under it. It will go right across into the park at Island Gardens to the river bank where the spoil will be taken away. Even if the conveyor belt is covered as promised, it will be noisy, dusty and dirty and it may operate 24 hours a day. It will pass by George Green school and the community sports grounds, with tennis courts and football pitches used by the school and the local community. I consider that they will all be unusable.
Some beautiful plane trees will be lost. The area is a conservation area, so the trees are protected, but they will probably have to come down. I am not even sure what will happen to the entrance to the lifts to the foot tunnel to Greenwich if it is in the way of the works.
My constituents will lose the use of Millwall park. They will lose some land permanently. They will lose the use of Island Gardens. The football club that plays on the sports ground will have to go miles away to the north of the borough. That will involve travelling time and fares and the club will probably dwindle. It was not unreasonable that we asked for money to be put into a community trust handled by representatives of the community to replace lost facilities and as compensation. At present only landowners directly affected by the Bill will receive compensation. Everyone else can whistle. I believe that the community is an entity and that it deserves some compensation. My request for a community trust was not unreasonable.
The Mudchute will also be affected. It is unique. London Transport seems to regard it as merely a bit of waste ground, but it is not. It was made by mud dredged from the docks. It is perhaps the largest farm in any city.

It has flocks of sheep and one can see horses grazing there. The effect on the Mudchute will be severe, as its western bank, an important part of the area, will be taken up by the development.
Horse riding has always been a popular activity on the Mudchute and the income which it generates has become ever more important in the overall budget. In September 1991, new stables were opened. They were built at a cost of £617,000, with funding largely from the LDDC. It was obtained because it would generate more income from the area. It was realised that if the Mudchute could offer hacking it could significantly increase its income and fund other activities. The farm circulated businesses in the area to tell them that it would be able to offer hacking. The plan was to develop a ride around the Mudchute and Millwall park, but that will now be blighted.
The Mudchute contains some buildings—classrooms which local teachers use for science lectures as part of study for the science curriculum. The children use trees for bark rubbings and they count the age rings. The elder trees along the southern and western edges are important because they provide examples of trees which have established themselves naturally, without deliberate planting. They will go.
The trees provide shelter and nesting sites for birds such as starlings, whitethroats, swifts and linnets. Further planting at the western edge was expected to attract a greater variety of birds, which are essential to wild animal and bird activities for the children who examine birds through binoculars, learn to identify and observe the different breeds, and make tally sheets and field sketches. I cannot tell hon. Members how important that is to children who grow up in a densely populated urban area. It is their little piece of the country, and it will be encroached upon.
The thicket area provides a rich source of food for birds, such as loganberries, blackberries, thistles and dog roses. It is a hiding place for wild animals such as voles, fieldmice, foxes and hedgehogs. Children follow animals footprints, track them and make plaster casts of their prints. All sorts of educational activities take place.
The Mudchute contains about 21 different species of butterfly—perhaps the greatest number for miles around. Much of the information that I have been given by Mudchute farm is very technical. The banks of the Mudchute provide an island for rare insects and rare species to live and to develop. The flowers and small beasts which enjoy that south facing bank are important to the children's scientific and nature studies.
The Mudchute has a livestock husbandry system. The stock is allowed occasional access to the area which will be taken away, so that it can benefit from the flora found there. Some highly palatable grasses such as timothy and coltsfoot are to be seen in abundance. That makes a rich pasture for sheep and goats. The well-established trees in the area provide cover for livestock in bad weather. It is a source of great concern that that area will no longer be available to the livestock. In addition, it is felt that a considerable area bordering the site will also be lost to grazing and not merely the part where work is carried out. The animals will keep far away from the work, shying away from areas of excessive noise and unfamiliar sights. The security of the livestock will be placed in jeopardy while work is taking place. Although existing fencing is adequate to contain stock, new fences and gates will have to be installed immediately work commences to keep


animals on the park and the farm. The farm feels that it would be a tragedy if it were to lose that valuable piece of grazing land.
The Minister saw the allotments, which are mostly used by old people for growing vegetables to supplement their diet. They will be affected.
I could go on for hours, but I do not want to take advantage of the House by going into a nature study tour of the area. However, it provides a good habitat for all sorts of butterflies—the wall, the common blue, the small copper and various other species which are becoming rare in this country. Twenty-one varieties of butterfly are to be found on the Mudchute. It is not merely a piece of wasteland, as London Transport seems to think.
There will be a great loss of amenities. A large part of Millwall park will be out of action for three years; part of it will go for ever, and it will not be properly compensated for. Island Gardens, where one can sit in the summer and look over the river, will be a big mess. The Mudchute will be affected, as will sports facilities attached to the George Green school.

Mr. Cohen: I listened to my hon's informative passage about the Mudchute. All hon. Members considering the Bill should bear in mind what she has said. She mentioned that the promoters of the Bill will chop down all the trees.

Ms. Gordon: No—some of them.

Mr. Cohen: They will chop down some of the trees—a great number of them—in the area. Has there been any offer to replace the trees within the vicinity? We now have much higher standards for the environment, or we should have. If trees are chopped down, they should be replaced. Have the sponsors approached her with any suggestions to replace the trees and the wildlife to which she has so eloquently referred?

Ms. Gordon: Many mature trees were planted at Canary wharf and the sponsors have promised to reinstate the park. However, since debris from the first phase of building the railway is still there and has not been taken away, and since the changing facilities have not been repaired and put back into operation we feel cynical about what will happen. We would like written guarantees, but we have not received any.
The planning authority, which will have to give planning permission for construction of the stations at Mudchute and Island Gardens, will be the LDDC. That is an unacceptable conflict of interests. The Bill gives outline planning permission for construction of stations, site unseen. The LDDC will be asking itself for planning permission, without any interference, or any responsibility to the local community. Whatever it wants to do, it will be passed automatically, without any investigation or inquiry. That is not right, especially in the light of the planning decisions which the LDDC has made in the past, with its bureaucratic powers, and in view of its insensitivity to the concerns of the local community.
Local people do not have any faith in the docklands light railway system. It was built as a tourist railway on a bus stop principle—frequent trains, at short intervals, operating more like a bus service than a railway. Some

people called it a Mickey Mouse railway and, in fact, the original carriages have been sold to Euro Disneyland. The railway has not been working properly and is unreliable.
If the Government are serious about improving north-south connections over the river, we need a proper railway or an underground line. The Jubilee line will be going through eventually and at least people have faith in that. Only a crazy person would rely on the DLR as things stand. Extending the railway merely increases the opportunity for things to go wrong.
We suggest that the DLR experiment has been tried for several years and has been found wanting. Further problems will arise during the construction period. As I have said, they propose to use a conveyor to take the spoil out of the tunnel. The spoil will not go to Greenwich; it will all come to our end and our people feel that they always get the rubbish and the worst of the bargain. The conveyor runs next to a school playing field. We do not know how it will be designed, but we have fears that the design and noise will make the area unusable.
The construction period is anticipated to last three years, so when we talk about the loss of view and of the effect on our environment and so on it is not a short-term one. We also understand that, when the spoil comes out of the tunnel, it will be wet and will have to be dewatered. A local resident who has worked on the Blackwall tunnel says that the spoil will be stinking as well. That is something we have not come across yet. We have had dust, noise and dirt—dust storms in the summer, mud in the winter and pile driving. The possibility of stinking spoil fills us with horror.

Mr. Cohen: What about rats?

Ms. Gordon: Yes; they will also be a problem.
The Thames at this point is salty and saltwater will have to be removed somehow. All that we have been told is that it will be pumped into the sewers. Thames Water says that the sewers are operating at capacity already, so we want to know where the water will go. If it goes on to the park, the salinity will destroy the vegetation.
The environmental impact statement prepared in December said that that point had been taken up with Thames Water, but all we know is that the matter is being discussed. The volume and the capacity of the sewer system are unknown.
No one on the Isle of Dogs needs the railway extension. There is a groundswell of opinion that local people do not want to travel to Lewisham or Greenwich. If they want to go to Greenwich, they can use the foot tunnel anyway. It is clear that the railway is being built to enable the population of south-east London to travel on to the Isle of Dogs and many people from Kent will travel through it to the Bank. We have no wish to impede the people of south-east London travelling easily and quickly where they want to go. However, if the object of the exercise is to provide employees needed for businesses that it is anticipated will start up on the Isle of Dogs, the idea is misconceived.
Unemployment on the Isle of Dogs is already higher than it is in south-east London. The people of Lewisham and Greenwich should know that the companies that move into the developments on the Isle of Dogs usually bring their own staff. The London research centre gives Tower Hamlets as a whole an unemployment rate of 16·4 per cent. In Milwall, it is 15·8 per cent. and in Blackwall it is 14 per


cent. Other organisations put the figure at up to 24 per cent. In Lewisham, unemployment is 16·3 per cent., Greenwich 14·4 per cent., Bromley 6·4 per cent., Bexley 7·6 per cent., and Croydon 8·6 per cent.
The LDDC has not created jobs for local people, either in construction or on a permanent basis, as it was meant to do. Local businesses have gone and are going out of business because of the planning blight—I have to call it that. Now the LDDC is making alternative arrangements to assist residents from outside the borough to bypass local people when it comes to obtaining jobs, and my constituents feel that they have had very few jobs out of the developments. Therefore, they resent that proposal, too.

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend referred to commuters coming from Kent, passing through her constituency and not stopping there on their way to Bank. Is she aware that a number of those living in Kent will benefit, although they will not benefit very much, from the Government's policy on the channel tunnel link? The Government changed their policy to assist those people so that their environment was not blighted by the railways which will pass through their area. They have, at least, received some help to defend their environment.
However, when it comes to constituencies such as that of my hon. Friend and mine, where the Department of Transport proposes a road scheme, the Government do not care about the environment. Is that not a double standard? Would my hon. Friend care to speculate on why the Government care for areas such as Kent but not for constituencies such as mine? Is not that political bias by the Government because they are trying to bribe some voters by protecting their environment to some extent? However, when the population does not support the Conservatives, the Government do not care for their environment and give them the worst of things. Is that not double standards and political bias and no way to run a railway?

Ms. Gordon: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a matter of political bias. It also depends on how much clout one has. In middle class areas people have money, they can employ barristers to fight their case, and they stand a better chance of avoiding planning blight.
The people of the east end feel that others can get away with anything. The whole point is that the Government have trodden roughshod over my constituents. I am talking not just about the railway extension, but about everything that has happened since they came to office. Land has been regenerated, but the people have been persecuted by noise, dust and dirt. No one takes any notice of their interests and no one cares that the Government are breaking up communities.
My constituents feel that they have no voice, but they are learning. One thousand members of SPLASH have got legal aid to sue the LDDC for what has happened to their lives. We shall watch the outcome of that case with great interest because thousands will be affected by and interested in the outcome.
I am always in favour of improving public transport rather than building more roads that generate more cars. The docklands highway will generate more traffic on to the A13, which will become worse than ever. If the railway functioned well, if it was reasonably quiet so that people could live with it, if it could take the extra load and if we

had proper guarantees, which should be in the Bill, and proper information rather than being asked to sign a blank cheque, we might have a different attitude towards it. If the community were given proper compensation, they would be prepared to put up with a lot. They are socially conscious people, good people, and if they saw the need for something and felt that their interests had been taken into account and not totally ignored they would have a different attitude. But now they are up in arms.
As well as causing the loss of amenities, the railway will cause an increase in noise, dust and dirt with deleterious effects on health, for example, on asthma sufferers, and the nerves of local people. Apart from that, however, construction of the railway would also require the diversion of the East Ferry road. That busy road is one of the most important residential roads in the area and it would be stopped up during the construction works. Anyone who wants to get around the island will face long detours. I should also mention that people can now walk across the park to the only supermarket on the island, Asda, but they will be unable to do so once the work starts.
The local population will receive no compensation for the losses that they will suffer unless the Department of the Environment has a change of heart. I assume that the DOE is the responsible Department, because I am assuming that the railway will be handed over to the LDDC. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) has said, we do not know. Whoever's court the ball is in, be it the DOE or the Department of Transport, if there was a change of heart on their part and if they gave some compensation to the community, that would be welcome. So far, London Transport has said that it will compensate only on the basis of land ownership.
The users of the park will get nothing and the local authority, as the operator of the park, is still fighting London Transport for compensation from the building of the last railway. That case will go to the Lands Tribunal. We have no faith that the compensation available will be anything other than derisory. The promoters should compensate all local residents, not just those with property immediately abutting the line, but they offer nothing. The local population has everything to lose and nothing to gain from the railway. I am therefore opposed to the Bill.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I wish to place on record the Government's support for the Bill and recommend to the House that it be given a Third Reading. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) on the way that he presented the Bill and for his hard work in all its stages in the House.
The Government support the Bill because the construction of an extension to the existing docklands light railway to run on into Lewisham and Greenwich will provide a welcome access for the people of south London to an important employment centre in docklands. It will provide great benefits to communities that are, in many ways, economically disadvantaged and it will give them much better access. Instead of having to pass through London Bridge or Bank stations they will be able to cross dirctly to docklands.
In addition to employment benefits, as the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) fairly pointed out, the railway will be an additional crossing of the


Thames. Crossings are relatively limited, even with the recent opening of the Dartford-Thurrock bridge. The railway will benefit people travelling from much further afield, including Kent.
The Government have supported the principle of the private sector designing, building and operating the extension for the simple reason that its involvement will mean that the project will be completed earlier than would otherwise have been the case. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South clearly spelt that out in his opening speech. Without private sector involvement in the project, we might have to wait many more years simply because there are many pressing and valuable projects within Greater London, not only for London transport and British Rail but for the LDDC, which is responsible for much of the roadworks within docklands.

Mr. Cohen: We have heard all that before in relation to the Channel tunnel and the Channel rail link. The Government and the Minister's predecessors said that private finance and involvement would get those built much sooner than if the state were involved. The truth has been the opposite—the Channel tunnel will not be completed in time and the Channel rail link is well behind schedule. We have no date for its completion. Are not the Minister's words just so much hot air?

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman has heard those words before and he will hear them many more times from me. The Channel tunnel project has been a remarkable success—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would like to visit the Channel tunnel, I shall arrange it. I have walked through it and it is a miracle to behold. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would benefit from seeing what a tremendous civil engineering project it is. Moreover, it will be completed on time. The railway services through the tunnel, operated by Eurotunnel, British Rail and SNCF, may not be in operation by the summer of 1993 but they will be very shortly thereafter. The Government believe that the private sector's provision of the Channel tunnel is a tremendous achievement. I dare say that, had the public sector been responsible for financing it, it may have taken considerably longer.

Mr. Peter Fry: Will my hon. Friend remind the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) that the last great infrastructure project in the public sector in this country was the Humber bridge, which ran months and months over its time and increased its cost enormously?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I hope that we shall not go around the entire United Kingdom in this debate.

Mr. Freeman: No, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall come straight back to the Bill.
We propose to transfer the docklands light railway from London Regional Transport to the LDDC. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering the representations made following the consultation procedure with the local authorities and others, and we shall reach a conclusion shortly. If it is decided to proceed with the transfer, it will be clearly appropriate to amend the Bill later in its proceedings, probably in another place, to substitute the DLR—not the LDDC—for London Regional Transport as the sponsor.
The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), in one of his several interventions, erroneously said that passengers would pay for the work that London Regional Transport will do on the preparation of the Bill and in carrying forward the project—consultation with the private sector, design work, etc. May I make it plain that the fare-paying passenger has not been financing London Regional Transport for that work. Rather, the taxpayer has been financing it through the grant mechanism. It would not be equitable to ask underground or bus passengers to pay for the work.
The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar in a very detailed speech, cited the environmental impact on her constituents. The whole House recognises that she has discharged that obligation this evening with great thoroughness. It is an important issue. I have visited her constituency with her and I agree that the construction of a new line running south through the Mudchute and Island Gardens, under the Thames to Lewisham and Greenwich, will bring inconvenience and disruption. I saw for myself the impact on the Mudchute which, incidentally, is where the contractors put the mud when they excavated the Royal docks and the docks on the Isle of Dogs. I saw for myself the allotments there and I know that there will be an impact, albeit marginal, on the Mudchute. However, Millwall park will be temporarily affected during construction and permanently by the loss of part of the park. Clearly, Island Gardens, with its most attractive view of Greenwich, the naval college and the observatory, will be affected during construction.
The conveyor belt to which the hon. Lady referred will be a visual intrusion to the residents of Island Gardens, who will suffer from the noise of construction and of the partial demolition of the old line. I do not know whether the sponsors of the Bill plan to demolish Island Gardens station but the construction of the new line will bring inconvenience. I have written to the hon. Lady and said that I understand the points that she raises and I have given her an undertaking that I will bring the matter to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, who is responsible for the LDDC and London Regional Transport.
If the transfer goes ahead, it will be a matter for the LDDC and the Department of the Environment, which is the sponsoring Ministry. The hon. Lady asked for an amenity fund and she made a powerful argument. I cannot assure her on that and she has sought none from me tonight but, having visited the site, I understand the strength of her argument and I shall discuss the matter with my hon. Friend.
Finally, you have ruled, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is in order to comment on the second Bill. I understand that the block on this Bill has been removed. The Government also support what my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South said—it is appropriate because it rectifies a technical defect in the Bill. I commend both Bills to the House.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: I begin by declaring a strong constituency interest in these Bills. As the Member for Deptford, I have supported the proposals of my local authority and London Transport and the promoters of the Bill since its early stages, and I want to put on record my admiration for the officers of my local authority who have struggled for six years to get this


package together, in support of the proposals by London Transport, and who have done a good job in assembling an impressive argument in favour of the extension of the docklands light railway across the river.
My constituency is very like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) in that it has high unemployment—19 per cent. at the latest count and an increase of more than 40 per cent. in the past year. It also suffers from poor transport infrastructure which greatly hinders my constituents when seeking employment anywhere other than the local area. It suffers, too, from all the inner-city problems that arise specifically from road congestion. We have air pollution, noise, environmental degradation and poor local amenities. My constituency, therefore, is in desperate need of economic regeneration. Thus it has been my view and that of the Lewisham local authority that the extension of the docklands light railway to Deptford and Lewisham will provide a vital stimulus for economic growth in the area.
The extension would also add to Lewisham's development as a major commercial and shopping centre in south London, and, with five new stations south of the river and interchanges with British Rail lines, it offers a considerable increase in the choice of public transport routes for local people.
It is not, however, as a constituency Member but as a Front-Bench spokesperson on transport in London that I ought to speak tonight. In that context, I begin with the record of the docklands light railway. It is not impressive. It was a badly designed railway, designed with a capacity far too limited for the potential demand. It was in fact another example of the Government trying to get new infrastructure on the cheap. It has not been an unmitigated success, and that needs to be acknowledged.
Many of the aspects mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar tonight give us great cause for concern. Too much noise is associated with the running of the railway; that must be put right. The railway has not been reliable; that must be put right, too. We certainly do not want an extended DLR that operates in the same way as the railway has been operating in the past 12 months.
It is our belief that the railway can be made more reliable and that it has the potential to offer a valuable form of public transport. Within the framework of a Labour transport policy for London, with a strong consumers charter, we believe that we can have an effective railway. For these reasons, Labour is prepared to welcome the extension of the DLR south of the Thames. It is welcome for strategic reasons and for providing an alternative to take the pressure off overloaded BR commuter services running into Cannon Street, Charing Cross and London Bridge. This extension will have the potential to carry at least 12,000 passengers an hour—rather more than the modest 20,000 a day envisaged for the original DLR.
The extension will create a much needed cross-river link between east and south-east London and will greatly improve links with the docklands. It is likely that many commuters using an extended DLR will transfer from their cars. That is enormously important to cutting pollution and easing road congestion. We strongly support measures that will enable people to use their cars less, and light rail is potentially non-polluting and environmentally friendly.
It is also undeniable that the DLR and its extension are fully accessible to people, including wheelchair users, with mobility handicaps. That is important to us and a

considerable improvement on existing public transport services in south London. For these reasons, we support the Bill.
Before I move on to the aspect of the Bill that gives us particular concern—the transfer of the DLR to the London Docklands development corporation—I should like to refer further to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar. I understand and appreciate the anxieties that she has expressed about the amount of disruption and the loss of amenities which her constituents will suffer as a result of these proposals. She will understand that, for the strategic reasons that I have mentioned, Labour supports the DLR extension, but I assure her that I have been impressed by the force of her arguments in support of her constituents and by the case that she has made for changes in the Bill, for compensation, for action on noise and environmental damage, and for an amenity trust.
I was disappointed by the Minister's reply. Given that most of us are so anxious for the passage of these Bills, surely he could have given a more positive response so that we could have made united progress on an important public transport measure. I undertand that reference has been made to the Department of the Environment; as the LDDC is outside the remit of London Transport, I urge the DoE and the LDDC to consider these matters sympathetically. I hope that ways will be found to compensate my hon. Friend's constituents; only in that way will we all be satisfied that there is justice in the passing of these Bills.
I come now to the proposal to transfer the DLR to the London Docklands development corporation. The Labour party has long argued that there should be a strategic plan for transport in London. We have often stated that transport in London cannot be left to the operation of market forces. Private companies cannot and do not wish to pick up the responsibility for a coherent transport network in this capital city. It is up to the Government to provide that framework, and our proposals for a Greater London authority will devolve responsibility for strategic planning in transport to a Londonwide authority which is elected and democratically accountable.
Welcome though the Lewisham extension measure is, we do not feel that the Government encouraged it because of its intrinsic merits or strategic valuethey did so simply because it would cost the Government nothing to let it go ahead.

Mr. Freeman: I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Lady will agree that she did not mean that. I have often said that the docklands light railway extension to Lewisham and Greenwich has been, is and will be recognised for its strategic necessity—and for its social and economic regenerative benefits. I am sure that she will concede that the private sector has been involved in building it to advance its construction.

Ms. Ruddock: It is still our view that this should be the responsibility of the Government. If they believe that the case has been made, they ought to give it real support—and they could have. The amounts involved in this extension are very small in Government terms and, had they been given, they would have speeded this measure's passage and thus avoided forcing those who want the


railway extended to devote enormous efforts to getting together the package of private money needed to make the proposal feasible.
This is rather like the extension of the Jubilee line. Private money drove that proposal forward and created priorities for the Government. That was wrong, and it is wrong of the Government to have made it a condition that this extension should proceed only if private sector money is found. The Government have demonstrated their willingness to subjugate the needs of Londoners and London's transport to private interests. When in government, Labour will take a very different view.
We oppose the creeping privatisation of transport in London which is endemic in this proposal. The transfer to the LDDC is an outrage, and we strongly oppose it. It is merely a prelude to complete privatisation when the LDDC ceases to exist in a few years' time. When the Government first suggested making this transfer, I tabled a long series of parliamentary questions. The answers showed that the Government had no idea of the implications of the transfer. No answers were forthcoming on the fate of travelcards, on through-ticketing or on the responsibility of the LDDC for a network outside its own area. There were no answers about the role of the London Regional Passengers Committee and no replies to a list of other important questions. However, it slipped out, although it was officially denied, that 1 April might be the transfer date. There are surely serious doubts about whether such a transfer is workable by 1 April. In any event, I promise the House that a Labour Government will return the DLR to London Transport when we take office on 10 April.
There are so many concerns about the second Bill that I shall not have time to go into all of them. I remind the Minister that no answer has been forthcoming on the availability of travelcards or concessionary fares. There has been no clarification of the responsibility of the LDDC to the DLR outside its own territory, and no information on new operational arrangements for emergencies or on the quality-of-service standard. May we expect an LDDC customers charter or will we just get more roses and boxes of chocolates?
There has been no explanation of how a railway system run under the aegis of the Department of the Environment will be co-ordinated with the rest of the rail and bus networks in London. Everybody in London, with the exception of the Government it seems, thinks that there must be integration and co-ordination of different modes of transport. However, the transfer will work directly against that strategy.
We want answers to our questions, but none has been given. As the Minister has declined to give them, I hope that the promoter—

Mr. Freeman: I do not want to put the hon. Lady off her train of thought. The intention is that travelcards and concessionary fares should continue. I understand that the LDDC will ensure that the LRPC's remit runs to the DLR. No change is envisaged on any of those three counts.

Ms. Ruddock: I thank the Minister because it is useful to have such matters on record. Again, he uses words such as "intention".

Mr. Redmond: I should like to be clear about transport commitments to the elderly. Following deregulation in South Yorkshire some old-age pensioners who had bus passes were unfortunately unable to use them because of the lack of transport. It was uneconomical for the private firms to pick up elderly people in housing estates and they were left without transport for some weeks. I suggest, and I am sure my hon. Friend agrees, that if the private sector finds a route uneconomic it will certainly not wish to provide transport or service on that route.

Ms. Ruddock: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Outside London, deregulation, fragmentation and privatisation of services have resulted in the loss of many arrangements similar to the travelcard. There is no doubt in the minds of Londoners that travelcards and concessionary fares are two of the city's most important transport measures and that they are undermined by fragmentation and privatisation. That would happen with the transfer of the DLR to the LDDC. We are not impressed by the Minister's assurances, because they are not specific enough to satisfy us and are not in the Bills.

Ms. Gordon: Has my hon. Friend considered the fact that if the railway is run by a private company and proves not to be sufficiently profitable it could be closed? A fleet of minibuses on the Isle of Dogs stopped wherever passengers wanted them to, but London Transport took it over and it went out of business.

Ms. Ruddock: My hon. Friend astutely expresses my concern. We are all afraid of such measures, because experience shows that they jeopardise the provision of public services in London and put transport services at grave risk.

Mr. Cohen: The LDDC is nominally due to close its doors in a few years. Some of us suspect that it might carry on if the present Government, horror upon horror, were to win the election. In that case it might sell off this line to another private company and, presumably, the Minister's assurances will be quite worthless. Would not it be better for assurances on concessionary fares and travelcards to be on the face of the Bill?

Ms. Ruddock: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I have consistently made that point to the Minister. There can be no doubt, and the Government have not denied, that the LDDC is expected to cease to exist and that the DLR, having been passed to the LDC, would then be passed to some private company or other. In connection with the DLR, the Government's intention is privatisation. We have no doubt about that, but we are opposed to it and will end it when we come to office in the foreseeable future.
I have expressed the concerns as forcefully as possible, but I am in a difficulty. We see the need for extending public transport provision, especially south of the river. We do not think that it is right to penalise the residents of south London by holding up the Bills while we debate the ownership of the DLR. With great reservations, we are prepared to allow the Bills to proceed. We look forward to the day, in the not-too-distant future, I think, when a Labour Government will control the transport strategy for London. I assure the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar that environmental considerations and safety will be given much greater


priority in transport planning than at present. They will also be given much greater priority in the day-to-day operation of our railways.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: In view of the fact that on 9 April we are supposed to have a general election, which the Prime Minister will announce two days after the Budget, having had an important Cabinet meeting, surely since Labour will win the election we need not talk about having a Labour Government in the foreseeable future because we shall have one in only a few weeks? Why can we not say that Labour will not assist to pass this Bill? We are going to win anyway, and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) will have a meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon). We can then draw up an agenda for the necessary negotiations and consultations. Be confident. They will get kicked out of office and we should not give them any support now. Nobody will come to any harm, but the residents of Bow and Poplar will be better off because we shall take control and those residents will be able to get their pound of flesh as they see it.

Ms. Ruddock: I was trying hard to assure my hon. Friend that that was the way things would go. We want to see the Bill proceed, even though the election is only a matter of weeks away. We want to be in the business of making the adjustments and amendments and being in control of the situation. We expect to be in control on 10 April.
I have outlined the way in which, when we are in power, much more consideration will be given to environmental and safety concerns in both the construction and the design of railways. The same will apply to the day-to-day running of the railways.
Public transport must operate in the wider public interest, and must have as little impact as possible on residential areas and community facilities. That is why Government must take responsibility for transport and must be willing to use public money where necessary to achieve their objectives.
Undoubtedly, two of the reasons why there have been so many problems with the DLR are its underfunding and the Government's lack of commitment to ensuring that it runs effectively. We know that there is no bottomless pit of public money; the difference between us and the Government is that we are prepared to adopt new and imaginative ways of making limited public funds go further.
The House will know of the persistence with which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has pressed Ministers to allow British Rail to lease rolling stock for the north Kent line. Such arrangements would be relevant to the funding of the Lewisham DLR extension and could possibly provide the means whereby an increase in total funds could help to meet the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar.

Mr. Freeman: How does the hon. Lady expect British Rail and the Treasury to treat the finance lease that would be involved in paying for the 188 class 465 Networkers? Is she confirming that that lease would, according to standard accounting practices, be capitalised on British Rail's balance sheet and counted as public expenditure?

Ms. Ruddock: The Minister will know—because of the frequency with which my hon. Friend has made the point to him—that we believe that we can make such arrangements in the same way as continental railways. We consider that this is a way of using a capital sum to pay out a much smaller amount, on an annual basis, in a lease arrangement, rather than funding the whole amount in any one instance. The arrangement is entirely acceptable to our shadow Chancellor and—as the Minister knows perfectly well—to the chairman of British Rail. It is dependent on our changing the Treasury rules. We have said that we will do that and we are satisfied that this is a way in which we can fund the railway properly.
Let me ask the Minister a more relevant question. Why is he not prepared to allow British Rail to make such a lease arrangement? Is he as ideologically opposed to the arrangement as he has said that he is for the past 12 months?

Mr. Freeman: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Ruddock: I hope that the Minister will excuse me if I do not.
We are perfectly satisfied that this is a way of making a limited sum of public money go further, in the interests of the taxpayer and of the travelling public.
Let me end by promising that a Labour Government will get the DLR running effectively. Labour will ensure that there is an extension to Lewisham and south of the river, in the ways proposed in the Bill, but with more priority given to both safety considerations and the environmental impact of the railway. We believe that the railway can be made to work effectively, in the interests of Londoners, in the interests of those who seek to travel and, I hope, in the interests of those who live and work in its vicinity.

Mrs. Rosie Barnes: I have been involved in discussions about the railway extension since 1988. Those discussions have taken place on an all-borough, all-party basis. We have made forceful representations to the Minister, urging him to give the scheme favourable consideration. Although there may be some t's that we would have liked to cross differently, the broad principle of the extension is much needed by the people of south-east London.
Over the years, we have had a very raw deal south of the river in terms of public transport. We have almost been cut off: we have had no underground system and only a limited British Rail system. That has had some advantages for the people of Greenwich—it has retained a certain village-like quality, for instance—but, although that may have added to the charm of the place, it has certainly not added to local people's job prospects and it is inhibiting commuters.
Over recent decades, Greenwich has experienced a vast decline in industry. In the 1950s and 1960s, many residents could find employment very close to their homes—almost within walking distance. Unfortunately, that has changed. Now, people must travel to seek employment.
Greenwich is also experiencing a major housing crisis. As house prices in north London have steadily risen, more and more people have moved to south London, where—


for a while, at least—prices were more moderate. That has led to more people trying to reach other parts of London for work opportunities.
By railway development standards, the cost of this railway is relatively modest. The period of time involved is relatively short. We are not talking about a decade or more. The scheme could be up and running by the mid-1990s. There will be immediate benefits, therefore, if the scheme goes ahead. We have heard that about 12,000 commuters an hour will use the railway. I am not so pessimistic as the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) about the residents of south-east London being unable to obtain jobs in docklands. The current recession means that the hoped-for jobs in docklands are not there, but I have always taken the view that the people of Greenwich and Deptford —I have a little bit of Deptford in my constituency—must be given the opportunity to take advantage of the future work opportunities that docklands presents. I have never accepted the argument that docklands jobs are for a different category of people, with different educational attainments. If that presents a problem, it has to be tackled. We must make sure that our people have access to those jobs.
Congestion in the area, particularly when it comes to crossing the river in the morning, is appalling. Those who have to use the Blackwall tunnel or the Rotherhithe tunnel know of the delays that can be experienced. The Network South East service in Greenwich is becoming almost a joke. We have experienced particular problems. I hope that the introduction of the Networker trains and the construction of the new tunnels will lead to a vast improvement. The present service, however, is infrequent and unreliable. Trains are frequently cancelled, or travellers experience considerable delays. The frustration of commuters is rising by the day.
A great step forward will be made by the combination of the docklands light railway extension and the Jubilee line which, for the first time, will link Greenwich with the underground system in London. Even those who travel to work by Rolls-Royce will be tempted to travel by means of a railway that allows them to cross the river to Canary wharf in 10 minutes and links them with other lines to take them into the City.
The railway's route through Greenwich is surprisingly uncomplicated. It will travel through pockets of residential areas. However, an almost ready-made route is available that would cause relatively little disruption to local residents. The railway will stimulate development and investment in Greenwich town centre. A great waterfront development is planned for the forthcoming decade. It will be no more than a pipedream, however, if a proper transport infrastructure is not provided.
I am concerned that the Bill's progress has already been somewhat delayed. That is due, in part, to the Prime Minister's announcement that the scheme is to be transferred to the London Docklands development corporation which, I understand, will be the shareholder, banker and strategic planner, while the docklands light railway will continue to run the day-by-day business of the railway. I understand the Government's motive—that they need to reinspire confidence and initiative, since the railway has been regarded as a very poor substitute for

what was originally promised. The number of breakdowns, the number of people stranded for hours on end and the inoperative nature of the scheme has caused great concern to those who had looked forward to its extension across the river. However, I have been reassured that some of the fundamental problems are already being tackled. Therefore, when the extension has been completed I expect it to run well.
I accept the LDDC's undertaking that it will honour all the commitments made to local groups and residents by London Regional Transport, but I share the concern of the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar that we need strategic planning for public transport in London so that we can achieve the long-overdue cohesion and co-ordination.
In my constituency, there has been some debate and controversy about whether we should have two stations relatively close together—one at the Cutty Sark and one at the British Rail station in Greenwich town centre. They are about five minutes walk apart and several bodies have argued forcefully that one would have been sufficient. I accept the principle that the railway will be a tram-like system which people will use for relatively short journeys to get very close to where they want to go. I also accept that commuters in Greenwich will find it easy to link with the British Rail station in Greenwich whereas tourists will want to use the Cutty Sark station.
I heard with concern what the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar said about the noise and deterioration experienced by her constituents over the years and I shall seek continual reassurance that that problem can and will be eradicated before there is any further development. The majority of constituents on the Meridian estate which will be affected by the Cutty Sark station will not, of course, have the immediate problem of noise, because at that point the extension will be underground, but, naturally, there are concerns. They fear dust, dirt and noise during the construction period and vibration once it is in operation.
One block of flats in particular has had a difficult few months. It was initially threatened with demolition and, although it now seems to have been spared that, it will bear the brunt of the dirt, noise and pollution during construction. I hope that the residents of Walrond house will be treated with the generosity and sensitivity that they need.
I should also like to draw the Minister's attention to the problem of residents in Straightsmouth who already have to contend with a great deal of noise from the British Rail tracks which run near their homes and which will have to be moved slightly nearer as a result of the development. I understand that the continuous track which they have requested is technically possible and it would, I believe, alleviate many of their problems. As so few residents will be adversely affected by the development, which will be to the great advantage of the vast majority, I hope that generosity can be the order of the day. However, the uncertainty of the past few years has been the worst of all worlds for many residents who have not known whether the development would go ahead.
I strongly recommend that there is no delay in proceeding with the Bill, as it will be to the enormous advantage of the people of south-east London. It will substantially improve the quality of their lives and provide access to job opportunities currently denied them. We are talking about journeys of 10 minutes as opposed to a miserable journey of, perhaps, an hour and a half stuck in a car trying to get through the Blackwall tunnel in the rush


hour. Such journeys are proving to be an enormous barrier. It is extremely frustrating for people who can stand in Greenwich park and see the development in docklands. Let us hope that, when the area eventually becomes economically more vibrant, people in Greenwich will be able to do more than see it—let us hope that they can participate in it.

Mr. Alan Amos: I am a strong supporter of public transport in London and I frequently try to get to work on the docklands light railway. It follows, therefore, that I support the extension of the DLR. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his close and genuine interest in the operation of the DLR. I remember one occasion on which he offered to come to my house and to come into central London with me on the DLR. Fortunately for him, he could not do so that morning. If he had tried to make that journey, he would have been half an hour late.
I have one serious concern. How can the management of the DLR be expected to run an extended system to Lewisham and Greenwich when they cannot run the present system? Docklands Light Railway Limited must be the most badly managed and incompetently run part of the whole London transport system. I have wasted more time hanging around for trains and buses than I care to remember. The Government were right to transfer the management of the DLR from London Regional Transport to the London Docklands development corporation if for no other reason than that the LDDC cannot do any worse than LRT has.
The basis of my concern is widespread. About two years ago, I went to see the management of the DLR to discuss my concern about the unreliability of the system. I was then introduced to the proposals for the extension under the river to the south and I was given a map. I was concerned by what I saw on the map, so a few days later I went to LRT to discuss the proposals with it. I was told that the map I had been given was already nine months out of date and that all the proposals had been changed. I was not impressed by the management of DLR giving me a map that was more than nine months out of date.
Mudchute and Island Gardens are the two stations affected by the extension. I understand the need and desire of the DLR management to double the length of the trains which means that they have to double the length of the platforms. However, they did not double the length of Mudchute station and Island Gardens station. The people using those stations face a reduced service because trains terminate at Crossharbour. The galling point was that the DLR management put notices through the doors of local residents saying that that represented an improvement of the service of the DLR, although the opposite was the case. People are not fooled by such stupid statements.
No notice is given of changes in the bus routes which operate in the evenings and at weekends. There are no public announcements on platforms about what is going on during the daily disruption. The indicator boards on the stations rarely work. The escalator at Tower Gateway is frequently out of operation. In other words, the service is infrequent, irregular and unreliable.
There is no co-ordination between routes to Stratford and the connecting trains at Crossharbour to Tower

Gateway and Bank. The disruption is bad because it is daily. The only thing that is regular, reliable and predictable is the extent of the disruption.
The DLR's reputation is now appalling, but I fear that it is justifiable. What concerns me most is that it is bad for the long-term success of docklands, to which I am strongly committed, and it undermines all the good work of the developers, of the Government and of the others involved in the massive enterprise. I say yes to the extension, but only if the management are paid by results directly related to the DLR's reliability and punctuality, which is the only incentive to bring about radical improvements in the operation of any newly extended system. The DLR is superb in concept, but disgraceful in its management.
I urge the promoters to take note of those serious points. I have described what we have had to put up with over the past four years. If the system is extended, as I believe that it should be, it is vital that the quality of the service is dramatically improved. The people of that part of London deserve better from the management of the DLR.

Mr. Harry Cohen: The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) is right that, in many ways, the docklands light railway has been a disaster—one might even say an unmitigated disaster. The blame for that rests with the Government because it was the Government who built it on the cheap. It is an example of market forces at work and of what happens when there is a lack of proper planning in building such a system and in seeking to provide a good transport infrastructure for the area. For 13 wasted years, this Government have let market forces run the show.
Matters will not be made better if we allow the LDDC to take over. The LDDC eulogised the system when it first appeared but the LDDC is not—and nor has it ever been—a transport operator. It will control the railway only as a first step towards privatisation. I think that the disaster will continue as a result of the Government's chosen course.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) on a superb constituency speech. When the general election comes—perhaps on 9 April—she will be returned with a handsome and increased majority. The people of Bow and Poplar should be told how she defended their interests in the House when the Government, LRT and the LDDC wanted to walk all over them. No doubt my hon. Friend will see off the challenge from the Liberals quite comfortably. It is interesting that they have not been here at all. I suspect that, if the Bill and the interests of the people of Bow and Poplar were up before the House for discussion again in future, they would not be here to defend the areas interests.

Mr. Skinner: I have been here for a while and I have been looking for the Liberal Democrats, as they call themselves nowadays. It is just conceivable that they are having a caucus meeting to change their name again. It is just possible, with an election coming up. They have had their name for a year and a half—it is the longest lasting name that they have had since the last general election. Mr. Speaker should be told about this matter because, when they change their name, the question arises whether they


should receive what is called the Short money which they get on the basis of their name at the previous general election.
It is also possible that the Liberal Democrats are not interested in railways and that what they are interested in is getting round Paddy Backdown—I nearly said something else—otherwise known as Captain Mainwaring so that this little Dad's Army can have a caucus meeting to discuss what to do at the general election. They have all these high-flown ideas; we shall probably see them on telly tomorrow. I can see that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are beginning to think, "What has this got to do with the docklands light railway?" I can understand that, but I think that you will agree that railways are an environmental issue. They are an issue that is supposed to be for the anoraked people—the ones with green wellies who eat brown rice—but they are nowhere to be found. What can they expect when they are being led by him?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman had a good run but, as he admitted, what he said had nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. Cohen: I can well imagine the Liberal Democrats having a caucus meeting about their name because they certainly have no policies worth talking about. They have shown us that they are not interested in the environment and in public transport.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) said, the Labour party welcomes investment in new public transport infrastructure. Such investment has been grossly lacking in 13 years of this Government. We have had £109 billion from North sea oil but very little of it has gone into public transport infrastructure. The Minister said again tonight that he wants to rely only on private money. Where is private money during a recession?

Mr. Skinner: In Lloyd's?

Mr. Cohen: No, it is not there either. The Government are washing their hands of what they should do in terms of building up our public transport infrastructure. I welcome the element in the Bill concerning the extension to south London.

Mr. Redmond: We used to have an excellent transport service in south Yorkshire until the Government intervened. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) will agree that London desperately needs a co-ordinated transport system which takes people off the road and puts them on to rail. However, the Government have no sensible suggestions in that regard because they believe in market forces. Regrettably, market forces do nothing to improve services. Instead, they cause the cost of fares for the people in London to escalate. As a northern person, I implore people in London to demand co-ordinated cheap and efficient services so that the emergency services can move freely on the roads in London, something that they cannot do now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) will be very ingenious if he can respond to that intervention and remain in order.

Mr. Cohen: I can do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the Bill will mean less co-ordination of services because the

control of London's transport is being fragmented. By passing control to the LDDC halfway through the procedure, there will be less co-ordination. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) speaks from experience. He knows that we get better services if there is overall co-ordination.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar was right to say that the docklands light railway does not run properly. However, will the new line run properly? My hon. Friend said that the residents in her area suffer from noise and pollution. Will residents by the extended line suffer noise and pollution problems? She said that inherent noise problems were built in at the initial stage. Will that be the case with the extension? She also referred to inherent breakdowns. Will they occur on the new system?
The Minister made a very short speech, but he should have found time to respond to those basic issues about the docklands light railway. He should at least have said that the new system will not have the faults of the existing system. It was worrying that the Minister could not give any assurance about that. It looks like the same problems will be experienced, but that they will be extended.
In those circumstances, it might have been a better option to extend and improve the east London line to south and south-east London. The east London line has better links with east London and it might have been an option worth considering. Even if there are problems with the docklands light railway and the Minister still wants to go ahead—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair has allowed a fairly wide debate on the Third Reading of this Bill because it is closely linked with the Second Reading of the No. 2 Bill. However, it strays beyond that for the hon. Member for Leyton to talk about other options.

Mr. Cohen: I accede to your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Redmond: I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that the argument has been about the lack of response by the Government to compensate those who will be affected by the development. If the residents are convinced that compensation is the order of the day, they should press and press again. Only by doing that can they hope for a Government U-turn, which the Government have done in respect of many other matters not connected with this. I urge the residents to ensure that they give maximum support to my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon), who has done such an excellent job. The only way to obtain compensation is to press and press again. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees with me.

Mr. Cohen: I agree with my hon. Friend.
The transfer of the Bill to the LDDC halfway through its proceedings is disgraceful. The Bill was brought forward by the LRT and it was later switched over to the LDDC. Nobody knows who is responsible for what. Who is responsible for controlling the contractor, who is responsible for safety, and who is responsible for the compensation that the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar have requested? Again, no light was shed on that matter by the Minister. That is a disgrace.
The transfer to the LDDC is wrong in principle, because we cannot ensure the strategic planning for London transport as a whole, and it breaks up


management of the transport network. It also is a step in the direction of privatisation. The travelcard and concessionary fares systems could be put at risk in that part of the network. The transfer to the LDDC is wrong, particularly halfway through the proceedings on this private Bill.
Under the private Bill procedure, there was an objection by my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar. Attempts should have been made to meet her objection to try to resolve the matter. That is the normal process. If there is no objection, a Bill quickly passes through the House. If there is an objection, a Bill can sometimes flounder. I do not think that the objection that my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar eloquently put was insurmountable. If LRT, the LDDC or the Government wanted to, they could have met her objection. In part, they did not want to because they were shifting responsibility. They could have set up the community trust fund to supply some of the compensation to which my hon. Friend referred.
One of the few points that the Minister made about the amenity fund was that it has nothing to do with the Department of Transport, but it is a matter for the Department of the Environment. He said, "Go to it and try to persuade it to give you a few bob for the residents who are suffering." If a Department of the Environment Minister had been present, he would have said, "It has nothing to do with us, it concerns the Department of Transport." That mirrors the shift of responsibility between London Regional Transport and the LDDC. The LDDC says, "It has nothing to do with us, it is a matter for the docklands corporation." The docklands corporation would say, "It has nothing to do with us; London Transport is bringing forward the Bill." That demonstrates the Government's shiftiness in avoiding resolving my hon. Friend's simple objection. It took an hour to raise it because it could not be resolved simply.

Mr. Freeman: There was no ambiguity in what I said. The Government's proposal is to transfer the DLR from London Regional Transport to the LDDC. If a decision is taken to ratify that and give instructions to London Regional Transport to that effect, responsibility for the amenity fund will rest with the LDDC. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), who spoke for the Opposition, gave no commitment or promise to provide an amenity fund. I have not ruled it out and I hope that I have given a positive, clear and constructive response to the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon). I have visited the site. I recognise the problems and I have told her where the responsibility lies.

Mr. Cohen: I still think that the Minister is being somewhat mealy-mouthed. He says that the responsibility is with the LDDC but does not give any commitment to a fund.

Ms. Gordon: My hon. Friend is right. The Minister may have come down to the site and may have sympathy with the community and understand its problems but my impression is that the decision about a fund will be taken by the Department of the Environment and the LDDC, which is not sympathetic. We could not get more than £50,000 for thousands of television aerials, so how can we expect to obtain a decent amenity fund as compensation for the loss of facilities with the docklands light railway extension?
The people of Greenwich and Lewisham should also ask what type of metal the extension will be made of. Will it be heavy-gauge metal or the light metal with metal wheels against metal tracks that will deteriorate, need regrinding and make a terrible noise? Many matters have been left out which should have been specified in the Bill, so we cannot be certain how the line will be built. Therefore, we have to oppose it.

Mr. Cohen: I hear what my hon. Friend says. We have reached the Third Reading of the Bill. My hon. Friend has made her objections clear from the initiation of the Bill in the House. The Government, the promoters or the LDDC, which will take over the railway, should have got their act together, met my hon. Friend and come up with an offer of compensation for her constituents who will suffer. It is all right for the Minister to say that he is still open minded. He should have come up with the cash. He has had plenty of time to do that.

Mr. Redmond: Can my hon. Friend clarify what the Minister said? Lots of names are being bandied about by the Minister and he has made lots of promises about the project. But I am at a loss to understand—perhaps my hon. Friend can explain—why positive steps have not been taken to allay the fears of my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) and to meet the objections of her constituents. I listened most carefully to what the Minister said. Does my hon. Friend agree that there may be a danger that any money found for compensation will be taken elsewhere? Given the great giveaway that is taking place, I am at a loss to understand why the Minister has not come to the Dispatch Box and said that several million pounds will be provided to satisfy the points raised.

Mr. Cohen: That is a fair point. The Government think that my hon. Friend's constituents are not important and that they can walk all over them. Until now, the Government thought that they could walk all over my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar, even though she has made an objection on behalf of her constituents. She has shown the Government that they have another think coming. She will not let the Government walk all over her constituents and treat them in such an appalling way. The Minister must come up with the cash and an amenity fund to compensate her constituents.
The environmental aspects of the extension must also be dealt with. As my hon. Friend said, it is being built on the cheap. Some sections should be built by cut and cover. Improvement of the environment, compensation and the amenity fund should be written into the Bill.

Mr. Skinner: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has referred to the environment. We are talking about an environmentally sensitive aea. A Tory Minister came here the other day and talked about providing money for environmentally sensitive areas. I thought, "Hello. Summat for Bolsover, because of the dioxin." But I am not going to talk about that tonight. What was it for? It was money for environmentally sensitive areas in Tory marginal seats. It was an electorally sensitive area grant.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) is representing her constituents and demanding some form of compensation for them from this tinpot Minister, who reckons to run the railways, because they


will be blighted by the railway development and what she referred to as its Hornby-like tracks. I had better not say any more because it is already a matter for the courts.
The Secretary of State for Transport is here—the Minister who went upstairs to see the railway exhibition on the first floor of the House of Commons last week. What did he do? The £60,000 a year Tory Cabinet Minister smashed the clockwork trains. The whole clockwork arrangement on the floor came to a shuddering halt when that man ran it into the ground. He is supposed to have had 13 years in Government and he cannot even run a clockwork train. He is educated beyond his intelligence. Let us hear from him.

Mr. Cohen: I am happy to give way to the Minister.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) because he has given me the first opportunity since that curious piece appeared in The Times Diary to say that The Times has since apologised. It was a case of mistaken identity. I have not even visited the exhibition in question.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that we can now get back on the rails.

Mr. Cohen: I shall try to get back on track, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I agree that the area should be treated as environmentally sensitive. That is why I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar. The railway should be in cuts or covered in certain places and the amenity fund to compensate her constituents should be on the face of the Bill. We need more commitment than the Minister has shown tonight. The opinion of the House is clear—he should come up with the cash. He should compensate my hon. Friend's constituents.

Mr. Redmond: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Cohen: Yes, but this will have to be the last intervention.

Mr. Redmond: I am concerned whether the Bill will provide what it says that it intends to provide—an efficient cheap service which will be integrated with the London transport system. I am not confident that that is the case. I have listened to some of the arguments, although not all. Will my hon. Friend give me some assurance which will stop a Division? Having taken a train to travel here on Sunday night and sampled some of the delays on the way from Scotland to the City, I wonder whether one can accept what is being said by the Government side and by the promoter of the Bill. Can my hon. Friend give me that assurance as I have grave reservations?

Mr. Cohen: I suspect that my hon. Friend will not get a reservation on that particular train. I cannot give my hon. Friend the assurance he requires because I suspect that the train will not be cheap in terms of fares. However, it certainly will be cheap in terms of its building costs—just like the existing system. The service will not be integrated because it will be managed in a different way from London Transport.

Ms. Gordon: My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) has asked serveral times to be

assured that the railway will be a cheap and integrated service. It is my understanding that the private company that will run that railway will charge a premium fare. We do not know how much that will be and whether it will be in line with normal fares. Perhaps the Minister can comment on that.

Mr. Cohen: We are on Third Reading, with 16 minutes of debate to go and we now learn that premium fares are likely to be charged. That was not referred to by the sponsor or the Minister in his exceptionally short speech. It is extremely worrying to contemplate the introduction of premium fares. Fares across the capital have already gone up, so how much will the premium fare be? What effect will it have on concessionary fares?

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) demanded from the Minister what would happen in the subsequent takeover in respect of concessionary fares for pensioners and the disabled. The concessionary fare system in London is pretty good in comparison with the rest of the country. In response the Minister said something like, "It is not our intention". We know that that is parliamentary gobbledegook, because that means that in the event of the Tories winning the next election—if they are lucky—the whole concessionary fare system could go down the drain. That is what "intention" means.
The Government are now talking about a public sector borrowing requirement of up to £30 billion and it is a scandal that they cannot find enough money to compensate the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar. What is worse, someone from the royal family will open the railway. Di will turn up in her Mercedes or the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), who got a Mercedes from Maxwell for a quid, might come along. I have a straight John Bull question for my hon. Friend. Does he believe that the compensation for the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar should come from taxing the Queen's income?

Mr. Cohen: That is a fair question. I signed the early-day motion, along with a number of hon. Members, to that effect.
I doubt whether the Queen will come along to open this particular line, because the story goes that she came along to open the original docklands light railway and got stuck in one of the carriages. She got stuck because the railway was of a poor standard, even then. She will probably send Fergie along instead in the hope that she will get stuck in a carriage for ever.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was right about borrowing, which will be a key issue in the Budget. They should borrow the money to compensate the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar. If borrowing is a good option when it comes to the economy—

Mr. Skinner: It is flavour of the month.

Mr. Cohen: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. Therefore, it is appropriate to borrow money to compensate my hon. Friend's constituents and to improve their environment.

Mr. Cryer: We are now on Third Reading and, unfortunately, amendments are not easily applicable at this stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and


Poplar (Ms. Gordon) is the principal opponent of the Bill. However, she has made it clear that she supports the construction of railways, as we all do in the Labour party. However, because of the absence of clear safeguards in the Bill, she felt that she had to oppose it. Could my hon. Friend elaborate on some of those safeguards so that the House can be quite clear about the argument? People are keen to have railways that provide public transport on the basis of decent safeguards, but those safeguards have been rejected by the promoters in what appears to be a disgraceful fashion.

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend is right. I support improving and investing in the railways and our whole public transport infrastructure. In his repeated interventions, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) has answered my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). We need a co-ordinated system of public transport. Indeed, in London we need an integrated public transport system. Instead, we have chaos in many respects.

Mr. Redmond: Two points need to be clarified. First, reference has been made to whether the construction will be of a standard to ensure that the line will be able to run without the breakdowns associated with the modern system. The service that British Rail operates leaves a hell of a lot to be desired. If the Bill allows substandard development, it will lead to all sorts of chaos, such as we hear on news bulletins on transport in London.
Secondly, will my hon. Friend clarify the Minister's point about concessionary fares that will apply to residents of the area? Who will pay for them? They will be financed not by the company seeking to own and operate the railway but by the various boroughs that fall within the area covered by the line.
Will the construction of the railway be of a substantial nature and who will pay for the concessionary fares that the Minister said will be available once a private company is operating the line?

Mr. Cohen: That is exactly what the Minister was asked. Will there be the same problems with the extended line as there are with the existing docklands light railway? The Minister failed to respond or say whether it would be an improvement on the existing structure. I suspect that it will not.
I am reminded of an appalling evening that I spent in the docklands. Actually, I enjoyed the concert al the London Arena with my step-lad and his girlfriend. We travelled on the docklands light railway but halfway through the concert it was announced that the light railway would not be running at the end of the concert. So we were trapped in the arena and had to walk back in the pouring rain. I am told that that is not the first time that that has happened—[Interruption.] I have said who was at the concert on previous occasions because I have recounted the story in the past. Many people are caught because the operators arbitrarily stop running the trains. I wonder whether they will do the same with the extension.

Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Cohen: Let me answer the first point about concessionary fares. The Minister said that they would continue, but how much is his assurance worth? Who will pay for those concessionary fares? I doubt whether the LDDC will pay for them if the Bill does not force it to do

so. If no legal commitment enforces it to do so, it will not pay for concessionary fares. The next step, as the LDDC goes out of business, will be to sell the railway off and the next company that takes it over and strips its assets will not run a concessionary fare system either. It will certainly not do so out of charity.
We support an improved transport infrastructure for the people of Lewisham and south-east London. I want those people to get the jobs, and the seats on the trains —but I wonder whether they will get either. The Government bribed the people of Kent in the channel tunnel episode; now they are bribing them with the promise of jobs in docklands. When the trains arrive in Lewisham they will be packed with commuters from Kent whom the Tories are still keen to bribe. So the people of Lewisham, who may think that the extension is a life-saver, will not get their burns on the seats, let alone any jobs.
I should have thought that the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) would demand that some trains set off from Lewisham and Greenwich to cater for local people; otherwise, the commuters arriving at British Rail stations will enter the trains first—

Ms. Gordon: My hon. Friend might like to know that once the railway is extended to Greenwich and later further into Kent my constituents will probably not be able to get seats at Island Gardens ever again. I asked London Transport to arrange that one train every half hour should start at Island Gardens so that people could get a seat on it. London Transport refused; in fact, it did not give way on anything.

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend's demand was most reasonable. [Interruption.] I see that one of the Conservative Members who represents Lewisham has walked into the Chamber. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) has an important role in the Treasury: he can borrow the money. I am pleased that he has walked in—[Interruption.] I see that both Conservative Members representing Lewisham are here now. The other one, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), has had to take time off to decide which one of his brothers should get a knighthood. These gentlemen could borrow the money so that my hon. Friend's constituents were given the environment that they deserve and the compensation that they deserve.
I have no intention of talking out the Bill, and I have tried to be brief. [Interruption.] I have taken a lot of interventions—worthy interventions that deserved a response. I am happy to sit down now and allow the sponsor of the Bill the last few words.

Mr. Thorne: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to this interesting debate. I will certainly not talk the Bill out.
The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) made a detailed speech. I should like to correct one point in it—the original railway was designed for 25,000, not 1,500 people a day. It is now designed to cater for 100,000 a day. I am afraid that there is no time to discuss the hon. Lady's other points. I know that LRT is anxious to discuss various aspects of the Bill with her and that it has been


waiting since last October to do so. I hope that she will take the opportunity to discuss her various concerns with LRT in the near future—it is anxious to hear from her.
The Minister asked about the future of Island Gardens station. It is to be demolished; the new viaduct is to be demolished, but the old viaduct will be left, because, although it has not been preserved, it is of architectural interest. I am afraid that I have no more time in which to respond.

Mr. Redmond: I am grateful for an opportunity to say a few words about this matter—

Mr. Thorne: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 123, Noes 29.

Division No. 92]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Arbuthnot, James
Irvine, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Jack, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Jackson, Robert


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Jessel, Toby


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Beith, A. J.
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael



Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Boswell, Tim
Lightbown, David


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Lord, Michael


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Brazier, Julian
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Bright, Graham
McLoughlin, Patrick


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Mans, Keith


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Maples, John


Carrington, Matthew
Marek, Dr John


Cartwright, John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Cash, William
Maude, Hon Francis


Chapman, Sydney
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Chope, Christopher
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Moate, Roger


Couchman, James
Morrison, Sir Charles


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Dover, Den
Neubert, Sir Michael


Durant, Sir Anthony
Nicholls, Patrick


Fallon, Michael
Norris, Steve


Farr, Sir John
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Paice, James


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Patnick, Irvine


Fookes, Dame Janet
Porter, David (Waveney)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Riddick, Graham


Franks, Cecil
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Freeman, Roger
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Fry, Peter
Ruddock, Joan


Gale, Roger
Sayeed, Jonathan


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Shaw, David (Dover)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Steen, Anthony


Ground, Patrick
Stern, Michael


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Stevens, Lewis


Hanley, Jeremy
Summerson, Hugo


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Harris, David
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Hawkins, Christopher
Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Thorne, Neil





Thurnham, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Trippier, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Winterton, Nicholas


Wallace, James
Wood, Timothy


Waller, Gary
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Warren, Kenneth



Watts, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wells, Bowen
Mr. Peter Bottomley and


Wheeler, Sir John
Mr. Christopher Gill.


Widdecombe, Ann



NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McCrea, Rev William



Boyes, Roland
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Callaghan, Jim
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cohen, Harry
Meale, Alan


Dalyell, Tam
Nellist, Dave


Dixon, Don
Paisley, Rev Ian


Duffy, Sir A. E. P.
Redmond, Martin


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)



Fatchett, Derek
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Flynn, Paul
Soley, Clive


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Gordon, Mildred



Grocott, Bruce
Tellers for the Noes:


Illsley, Eric
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Lamond, James
Mr. Dennis Skinner.


Lewis, Terry

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 127, Noes 19.

Division No. 93]
[10.10 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Arbuthnot, James
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Baldry, Tony
Ground, Patrick


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hanley, Jeremy


Beith, A. J.
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Harris, David


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hawkins, Christopher


Boswell, Tim
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Bright, Graham
Irvine, Michael


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Jack, Michael


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Jackson, Robert


Carrington, Matthew
Jessel, Toby


Cartwright, John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cash, William
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Chapman, Sydney
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Chope, Christopher
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Couchman, James
Lightbown, David


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Lord, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Dover, Den
McCrea, Rev William


Durant, Sir Anthony
MacGregor, Rt Hon John



Fallon, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Farr, Sir John
Mans, Keith


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Maples, John


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Marek, Dr John


Flynn, Paul
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Maude, Hon Francis


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick



Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Franks, Cecil
Moate, Roger


Freeman, Roger
Morrison, Sir Charles


Fry, Peter
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Gale, Roger
Neubert, Sir Michael


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Nicholls, Patrick


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Norris, Steve






Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Thompson, Sir D. (Calder vly)


Paice, James
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Paisley, Rev Ian
Thorne, Neil


Patnick, Irvine
Thurnham, Peter


Porter, David (Waveney)
Trippier, David


Price, Sir David
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Riddick, Graham
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Wallace, James


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Waller, Gary


Ross, William (Londonderry E,
Warren, Kenneth


Ruddock, Joan
Watts, John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wells, Bowen


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wheeler, Sir John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Widdecombe, Ann


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wilkinson, John


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Winterton, Mrs Ann



Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Winterton, Nicholas


Steen, Anthony
Wood, Timothy


Stern, Michael
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stevens, Lewis



Summerson, Hugo
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mr. Peter Bottomley and


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Mr. Christopher Gill.


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman



NOES


Bermingham, Gerald
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Boyes, Roland
Meale, Alan


Callaghan, Jim
Nellist, Dave


Cryer, Bob
Parry, Robert


Dalyell, Tarn
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Dixon, Don
Skinner, Dennis


Duffy, Sir A. E. P.
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Dunnachie, Jimmy



Golding, Mrs Llin
Tellers for the Noes:


Gordon, Mildred
Mr. Martin Redmond and


Lamond, James
Mr. Harry Barnes.


Lewis, Terry

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (LEWISHAM, ETC.) (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order fir Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 27 February.

LONDON UNDERGROUND (GREEN PARK) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 27 February.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Wood.]

Orders of the Day — Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I have it in Command from the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The House will have observed that the names of all the present members of the House of Commons Commission except yours, Mr. Speaker, appear on the back of the Bill as supporters. Their support, which I appreciate, demonstrates that this is an agreed measure.
This is a short, technical Bill which the House of Commons Commission, as well as the authorities in another place, have been advised is necessary to enable further progress to be made in implementing the Ibbs report on House of Commons services. We had hoped to avoid the need for a Bill and have looked at various ways of doing so before finally accepting recently that the legislative route was the only one to overcome the problem.
In accordance with the timetable recommended in the Ibbs report, responsibility for works, and vote responsibility for stationery and printing is due to pass to Parliament on 1 April this year. The relevant estimates have already been presented. As things stand, there is a problem because there exists no legal persona in either House to whom property, leases and contracts can be made over. The House will quickly recognise the quite serious practical difficulties to which that could give rise. The solution, encapsulated in clauses 1 and 2, is to constitute the Clerks of each House as corporations sole under whose authority these and similar functions in other spheres of parliamentary activity, such as broadcasting and information technology, can be carried out.
The remaining clauses make provision for the takeover of works services. The Commission is grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and his Department—and, indeed, to Her Majesty the Queen's advisers—for their co-operation in facilitating the transfer and helping with the preparation of the Bill, which has been quite a complicated operation.
Two other provisions are of particular note. Clause 4 rectifies an anomaly, which has been encountered in other contexts, where civil servants have been transferred to new undertakings still in the public service. Under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, purely technical redundancies can arise for people who, to all intents and purposes, will be doing the same job under essentially the same terms of service. The clause extinguishes any resulting technical redundancy rights—and I stress the word "technical". For those who continue in their jobs, there is clearly no case for contemplating such rights. I can assure the House that it has no effect at all on


actual terms of service or on pension rights or on the rights of any employees if they are actually made redundant at any time.
I might also mention at this stage—although the point is not affected by the terms of the Bill—that the House of Commons Commission has accepted that, on 1 April, all the new employees of the House will retain their existing trade union affiliations if they so wish. In due course, proper recognition procedures will have to be undertaken and the arrangements for trade union representation assimilated into the House's existing structure, with whatever amendments may prove necessary. But, as I have said, nothing in the Bill will pre-empt this process.
Finally, I should mention the issue raised in the amendments to clauses 1 and 2 tabled by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), in his capacity as Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), to whom I am grateful. Let me make it clear that the Government accept the amendments. I agree that it would be awkward and anomalous for the Bill, through the provisions removing Crown immunity from the corporate officers, to force upon the two Houses the necessity to apply for planning, listed building and building permission for any works schemes on land that we will own outside the Palace itself.
The suggestion is that appropriate provision to make exceptions for those purposes—but not for other purpose—should be included in an Order in Council subject to the negative procedure in both Houses. What we are doing in the amendments is providing for the possibility of meeting the wishes of the Accommodation and Works Committee.
As I have said, the Bill has the support of the House of Commons Commission and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: It is something of a pleasure to be speaking from the Dispatch Box on a Bill among whose sponsors are listed my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), in the near-certain knowledge that that Bill will pass on to the statute book. This is the first time that I can recall that happening for some time—although after 9 April it will, of course, be happening regularly and that is something in which to rejoice.
As the Leader of the House said, this is a small but important measure. Not being a member of the House of Commons Commission—and in that I am almost unique among those present—I was surprised to discover that it was necessary to introduce a Bill to enact what was basically a fairly simple measure.
The Bill was designed following the Ibbs report to bring us perhaps not into the 21st century but just about into the 20th century. I hope that I shall not sound a sour note if I say that even this little Bill appears to be trying to make us preserve the fiction that the really important House is the one down the corridor. Is it purely churlish on my part to ask why the other place is dealt with in clause 1 while this place is dealt with in clause 2? Why is their Lordships' corporate officer described as the Clerk of the Parliaments and ours as the Under Clerk of the Parliaments?

Mr. Paul Flynn: Deeply demeaning.

Mr. Grocott: It is deeply demeaning, as my hon. Friend says. Perhaps as we stumble towards the 21st century, we shall come to accept that this place is marginally more important that the other place.
The Leader of the House touched on an extremely important matter on which I should like something placed on record. We are dealing not just with equipment and powers in this small Bill but with people's careers and livelihoods. We are dealing with the staff who will be affected by the change and I understand that they will include as many as 70 non-industrial civil servants and 120 industrial civil servants. I seek confirmation from the Leader of the House—either now or at a later stage in our proceedings, which will doubtless be fairly short—and an absolute assurance that the staff have been consulted at all appropriate stages in the development of the proposals and that, in any subsequent decisions affecting the staff, there will be full consultation with the staff affected and the relevant trade unions.
In particular, can the Leader of the House confirm again—I am fairly certain that I heard him say precisely this during his opening remarks—that there will be absolutely no adverse effects on the terms and conditions of employment of staff, including working hours, holiday entitlements and pension entitlements following any transfer of staff? Will the right hon. Gentleman also confirm their right to continue to be represented in negotiations by the trade union of their choice?

Mr. MacGregor: Perhaps I can clarify the position. As I said, clause 4 does not affect the pension rights and so on of those who are transferred. With regard to trade union recognition, any recognition negotiations after 1 April will be conducted by the transferred staffs' existing trade unions and through the consultation machinery to which they have become used.

Mr. Grocott: I am grateful for that confirmation.
As I did not speak in the debate on the Ibbs report, I must state that the Bill is not a sterile piece of legislation although it certainly does not make good bedtime reading. It does, however, have some important functions. I hope that it will be a move towards our having far better and more satisfactory working conditions, not just for ourselves, but—far more importantly—for those who work for us and those who visit the Palace of Westminster. Given that the Ibbs report found that no fewer than 69 per cent. of hon. Members thought that the Palace was a poor place in which to work, it should not take too much to begin to improve that position.
I want particularly to emphasise the need for improved working conditions for those who work for hon. Members. We are not looking for glossy paradises in which to work ourselves—far from it. We want minimum conditions in which we can operate and good conditions for our employees. In particular, I want to underline the appalling lack of facilities for visitors to the Palace who still have nowhere satisfactory to wait when they come to tour the House of Lords and the Commons. They have no proper refreshment facilities and I hope that, as a result of the Bill and similar decisions, there will be substantial improvements in that respect.
I am not asking for vast amounts of money to be spent. However, I hope that some areas of the Palace of Westminster can be used more effectively than they are at present. I am not convinced that Westminster Hall is used


as effectively as it might be. I am certain that there are parts of the Palace which very few people know exist. One of the joys of being a member of the Select Committee on Broadcasting was that we found a huge area, to which I have referred before, above the Central Lobby which no one knew existed before. It contained the odd plank, bucket and a half empty tea cup. That huge space had not been used before and it could have been used to accommodate the control room for the television studios and also a couple of television studios.
When we finally get control over our own affairs—the Bill goes part of the way towards achieving that—I hope that we shall be able to use most effectively all the accommodation presently available in the building. I will raise one other potentially divisive note: I wonder whether the balance of accommodation in the Palace between the amount used by the House of Lords and that used by the House of Commons has changed this century. In asking that question, I break all the rules, because it is a question to which I genuinely do not know the answer. The balance of power between the two Houses has changed this century and the balance of work rate has also inevitably changed this century. I wonder whether the use of the accommodation in the Palace of Westminster reflects the work required to be performed by the two Houses.
We must work towards raising our facilities up to minimum standards for ourselves, staff and visitors. We should also try to improve facilities. The Leader of the House touched on that matter.
I look forward to the time when—I am not alone in saying this—hon. Members will have in their rooms the clean feed of the televising of the proceedings of Parliament. It is odd that we can see them via satellite but we cannot do so from a direct feed to our offices. It is odd also that Ministers can do so in their offices but the rest of us cannot. I look forward to resolving that matter in due course.
This debate is related to what we shall debate next Monday, which is the procedure of the House of Commons. I do not think that all improvements will necessarily mean additional costs. There are many things that we could do which might reduce costs. For example, why are we here at 10.35 pm debating this matter? Why could we not do so in the morning?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): Why does the hon. Gentleman not sit down then?

Mr. Grocott: I shall sit down and be quiet if my two or three minutes over the limit enable us to debate such matters at 9 am instead of at 10.30 pm. They would be three minutes of my time most usefully spent.
With those comments, in particular those underlining the staffing queries, I am happy to support the Bill.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Although technical in character, the Bill is the expression of a fundamental change in the way we organise our affairs in the House of Commons. It is part of a process of taking control of the buildings into the hands of hon. Members, a process that began in 1975 with the setting up of the House of Commons Commission, which took the employment of staff under the control of hon. Members. That is not a nominal process, as it would be if the House

of Commons Commission were merely a Government body. It is a process in which there is wide representation, indeed, a majority of interests other than those of the Government. That should remain a characteristic of the bodies through which we carry out the responsibilities expressed in the Bill.
For Parliament to be independent, it must regulate its own affairs independently of the Government of the day. The Government come to Parliament to bring forward their legislation and to be answerable to Parliament, but Parliament must control its own affairs. It is therefore a happy occasion that there are the names of members of the Government, the Opposition, Liberal Democrats and other Back-Bench Members on the Bill. That is a necessary feature of the process of ensuring that Parliament is genuinely independent and in control of its own affairs.

Sir Barney Hayhoe: I endorse what the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has said. Such matters are deeply for the House of Commons, not just Front-Bench Members. It is right and proper that there should be brief interventions from Back-Bench Members in support of the measure. I certainly endorse the commendation of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

Clause 1

ESTABLISHMENT OF A CORPORATION TO BE KNOWN AS "THE CORPORATE OFFICER OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS"

Mr. Ray Powell: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 9, at beginning insert
'Except in so far as Her Majesty may by Order in Council otherwise provide'.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 2, in page 2, line 13, at end insert—
'(7) A statutory instrument made in the exercise of the power conferred by subsection (6) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution either House of Parliament.'.
No 3, in clause 2, page 2, line 44, at beginning insert
`Except in so far as Her Majesty may by Order in Council otherwise provide'.
No. 4 in clause 2, page 4, line 48, at end insert—
'(7) A statutory instrument made in the exercise of the power conferred by subsection (6) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution either House of Parliament.'.

Mr. Powell: As Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee, I speak on behalf of my colleagues and, I hope, for the new generation of domestic Select Committees in welcoming the Bill.
Initially, with my characteristic Welsh suspicion of being on the receiving end of something spontaneously offered, I wondered whether the Bill was simply a manoeuvre to strengthen further the already formidable influence of the Clerk of the House. But, as I understand


it, the Bill seeks only to establish in the form of corporate bodies the legal representative of each House who may, among other things, acquire property and enter into contracts. As such, the Bill gives legal force to the arrangements recommended by Sir Robin Ibbs and approved by the House. All hon. Members will remember the excellent report that Sir Robin Ibbs rendered to the House, which was accepted unanimously and has since been implemented.
The amendments arise out of concern on both sides of the House that the change in the nominal ownership of the parliamentary outbuildings might result in the House being subject to planning procedures in respect of its future building projects which would not have applied if the estate had remained under the control of the Secretary of State for the Environment.
The Bill provides for the transfer of parliamentary outbuildings from the Secretary of State to one or both of the so-called corporate officers. Clauses 1(6) and 2(6) specifically provide that any property so transferred
shall not be regarded as property of, or property held on behalf of, the Crown.
Although the transfer of ownership and control of the outbuildings to Parliament is to be welcomed, it appears to have the side effect of making the buildings subject to a range of legislation. In the case of most of this legislation, the Accommodation and Works Committee would raise no objections.
However, the Committee is worried that the effect of the Bill could be to impose town and country planning regulations at variance with those that apply to the Palace of Westminster. For this reason, the Accommodation and Works Committee would have wished to move amendments merely to retain or restore Crown immunity to the outbuildings in respect of the town and country planning Acts alone. We have been advised, however, that such amendments to the main Bill would have been difficult, if not impossible, to draft. Instead, we have proposed amendments which would enable Crown immunity to be restored to the outbuildings in respect of special legislation. Any statutory instrument to that effect would be subject to amendment in pursuance of a resolution of either House.
The purpose of the amendments is to allow planning for phase 2 of the new parliamentary buildings to proceed as if the parliamentary outbuildings had continued to enjoy immunity as Crown property. They are designed for no other purpose, and we would not expect the additional powers included in the amendments to be used to claim immunity from other legislation.
These are minor amendments which will assist the House in proceeding with the programme to provide adequate office accommodation for all Members and their staff. They have the unanimous support of the Accommodation and Works Committee. I hope that the Government and the House will support them.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 2, in page 2, line 13, at end insert—
'(7) A statutory instrument made in the exercise of the power conferred by subsection (6) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament'.—[Mr. Ray Powell.]
Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

ESTABLISHMENT OF A CORPORATION TO BE KNOWN AS "THE CORPORATE OFFICER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS"

Amendments made: No. 3, in page 2, line 44, at beginning insert—
'Except in so far as Her Majesty may by Order in Council otherwise provide'.
No. 4, in page 2, line 48, at end insert—
'(7) A statutory instrument made in the exercise of the power conferred by subsection (6) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament'.—[Mr. Ray Powell.]

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, considered.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.),
That the draft Farm Woodland Premium Scheme 1992, which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.—[Mr. Boswell.]
Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.) and Order [6 February],
That the draft revised Code of Practice on picketing, which was laid before this House on 4th February, be approved.—[Mr. Boswell.]
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8918/91, relating to Community strategy to limit carbon dioxide emissions and to improve energy efficiency, and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of the Environment on behalf of HM Treasury, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Energy on 11th February 1992; welcomes the conclusions of the joint Energy/Environment Council of Ministers on 13th December and of ECOFIN on 16th December as a positive step forward in agreeing a coherent and co-ordinated approach across the Community to limiting carbon dioxide emissions; endorses the Government's view that further analytical work on the likely effects of any Community-wide energy/carbon tax is required before any decision on such a tax can be taken; and supports the Government's intention to continue to work towards its conditional target of returning United Kingdom carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by 2005, as part of the international efforts to combat the threat of climate change.—[Mr. Boswell.]
Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

FREE MOVEMENT OF MEDICINAL PRODUCTS

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 10089/90 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Health on 30th April 1991, and European Community Document No. 9490/91, relating to the free movement of medicinal products; and supports the Government's view that the proposals are


acceptable in principle, subject to detailed improvements to the text primarily to ensure that the health and safety of the United Kingdom human and animal populations are fully protected.—[Mr. Boswell.]
Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

Kashmir (Human Rights)

Mr. Ken Hargreaves: I beg leave to present a petition to support the right of the people of Kashmir to self-determination.
It is signed by Mr. Mohammed Younis of 61 Nuttall street, Accrington and 637 others, most of them my constituents. They express their concern, which I share, about the situation in Kashmir and the failure of the world community to give the problems of Kashmir the attention which justice demands. They urge the United Nations to seek to ensure that a plebiscite, which was the subject of successful United Nations resolutions, be carried out to ascertain the will of the people of Jammu and Kashmir in relation to the state's final disposition.
The petition states:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable house will condemn the systematic mass murders, torture, arson and rape by the Indian forces of occupation in Kashmir, promote international efforts to help refugees fleeing Kashmir and to relieve the hardship and suffering of the people who remain in the territory, demand that India permit Amnesty International and other independent human rights agencies to enter Kashmir with a view to investigating and reporting on human rights violations and calls for the withdrawal of India's armed forces and security forces from the state of Jammu and Kashmir and their replacement by an interim United Nations administration with the task of restoring law and order, and as soon as practicable conducting the said plebiscite.
To lie upon the Table.

Puppies (Tail-docking)

Mr. Hargreaves: The second petition is signed by Mr. and Mrs. Smith of 312 Willows lane, Accrington and the members of the Council of Docked Breeds and
sheweth that we wish to retain our rights to dock our puppies tails as in time honoured tradition and to prevent serious damage and injury in adulthood.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House revoke the June 1991 amendment to the Veterinary Act of 1966.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Mifegyne

Mr. Hargreaves: This petition is against the drug RU486, which destroys life and risks damaging the health of women. As someone who believes that life is sacred arid begins at the moment of conception, I am happy to support the petition, signed by Mr. Barrie Price of 54 Palace road, Ripon, and 47 residents of north Yorkshire. The petition says:
we the undersigned wish to note with regret that, the abortion pill Mifegyne known as RU486 has been granted a product licence. We believe that drugs and medicines should be used only to save life. We deplore the fact that this drug causes the death of unborn human beings and we express our grave concern that it will damage women physically and psychologically.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House, which is committed to upholding respect for human life and protection of the weak and vulnerable, will do


everything possible to prevent the distribution and use of … RU486 and any other drug which, like it, are produced with the deliberate intention of destroying innocent human life.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Water Depletion (East Anglia)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of drought and water depletion in East Anglia. My staff and I did not realise how much information was available and we have been positively inundated with information and technical material.
I thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment for attending the debate and I hope that he will respond positively to the various points I shall raise. I should also like to thank Anglian Water, the National Rivers Authority, the National Farmers Union, Norfolk county council, the Council for the Protection of Rural England and others who have provided me with a great deal of information. That has enabled me to present a speech full of material and I hope that it will stimulate debate.
The purpose of tonight's debate is to highlight the drought in East Anglia and to press for further debate, education and long-term planning so that the threat to water supplies, caused by increasing demand and possible climate change, can be averted.
It is not so many months ago that I had a debate in the early hours of the morning on global warming. There is a link between that and drought. At a recent conference at the United Nations, the organiser, Gordon Young, said:
A change in climate may mean changes in precipitation patterns and quantities, changes in evaporation and, consequently dramatic changes in water resources. Rivers may flow less predictably, with altered discharges.
He also said that there would be just as important consequences for ground-water supplies. The question of climate change is relevant when one thinks about the long-term future of our water supplies.
In the county of Norfolk there is increasing discussion among the press, farmers, business men and consumers about water depletion. Everywhere I go in Norfolk people continually remind me of the fact that we are, for some reason, exporting water from Norfolk via Thetford to the more populated areas of Cambridge. That is a controversial practice and people are arguing about it because it is causing concern.
The university of East Anglia's school of environmental sciences is embarking on a three-year research contract funded by the NRA. The object of that research is to look at the relationship between climate change and river flows in East Anglia over 20 years. That research will use the inter-disciplinary approach, which is a particular strength of the university. This is an opportunity to draw attention to the good work that is done at the school of environmental sciences. That research will address whether there has been a real deterioration in river flows in that 20 years.
The drought has now entered its 43rd month according to the NRA and the facts about water depletion during that time are staggering. The authority reported recently that the 41 months to the end of December proved to be the longest dry period this century with only 79 per cent. of normal rainfall. Furthermore, rainfall was below average in 32 months, average in two months and above


average in seven months only. The results of those statistics suggest that an accumulative deficit of approximately 18 inches developed during that time.
Those 18 inches represent nine full months of rainfall for the region. East Anglia has suffered in particular, because it is acknowledged to be one of the driest areas with an annual rainfall of 600 mm only. The current demand for rainfall demands 200 per cent. over the average in the next three months in order to achieve levels prevailing prior to the drought. That dramatic increase is an impossibility according to the NRA and all other groups monitoring the situation. If there were such a dramatic increase in rainfall it would cause serious flooding and other damage to the environment.
Those to whom I have spoken generally agree that there needs to be stricter control over abstraction licences. In the past few weeks when I have been studying the subject, I have become increasingly aware of the apparent abuses in the water industry involving over-abstraction. The drought has been affected by abstraction to an extent that merits further study and possible re-evaluation. The University of East Anglia has begun the process of studying the effects of gravel extraction, sewage and farming on the flow rates of the Wensum, the Nar and the Bure rivers. Its work is an important starting point for determining what has led to the drought in East Anglia, over and above the lack of rainfall. We are studying whether the drought is caused by over-use of the water supply or by population flows into the region and house building.
There is a serious lack of knowledge about domestic water conservation. I believe, as do many people, that water metering must be introduced as quickly as possible. I therefore support the campaign by the Council for the Protection of Rural England and others for better water management. I also support the idea of a two-part tariff, where charges increase for excess use, which will promote water conservation and, at the same time, be fair to less well off consumers.
I reject the argument that the cost of introducing water meters is such that it would not be worth while for individual consumers to pay that capital cost because they would not recoup it in their lifetime. We must encourage Anglian Water and water authorities throughout the country to introduce metering as fast as possible. I have some knowledge of its use in France where it works well, is popular and results in cheaper bills for many people. Let us get a move on with water metering.
Ground water extraction has reached its highest level in the history of East Anglia. The growth in extraction is a response to present and future population increases. The planning policies of the Department of the Environment and local councils have been challenged regularly in the local press, the media and local debates as the seriousness of the water supply problem has become clearer.
Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that we must look at the law and practice involved in licence distribution? The current drought, coupled with over-licensing, has severely damaged rivers and therefore streams. Over-extraction means more than water depletion. Concern is also being expressed about its effects on the ecosystem in Norfolk generally. Unfortunately, I do not have time in this short debate to give chapter and verse examples, but my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware of them, as much publicity has been given to them.
I am informed that the National Rivers Authority has granted licences to almost every application from Anglian Water over the past year, which shows the need for careful monitoring of current practices. The National Rivers Authority originally turned down an application in Norfolk on the grounds
that the proposed increase in abstraction would significantly affect low flows in the nearby water course, and that the impact upon the fishery, local amenity and the maintenance of water quality downstream of East Rudham sewage treatment works would be unacceptable".
My hon. Friend the Minister may not be aware that his officials at the Department of the Environment reversed that decision on appeal. That causes me even more concern than the point that I put a few moments ago.
In the midst of the current drought, there has been no decline in the number of licences being distributed. There is therefore a strong case for a moratorium on all new licences until resources are allowed to replenish themselves.
A recent article in the Eastern Daily Press—it was written by Roger Southwell of the National Farmers Union—took up the issue of agriculture and irrigation. Time does not allow me to quote the article but it is important to realise that a long-term irrigation plan is needed. During the past few weeks I have been convinced by discussions that irrigation is important to agriculture and that it is important to educate the public to appreciate the significance of that. If irrigation were to stop, there would be higher food prices and job losses, for example. As I have said, there must be a plan for irrigation. It is not good enough to say that it can be switched on and off, as it were. There must be a long-term plan. The need for that was emphasised in the article to which I have referred. It is the NRA that imposes irrigation restrictions whereas the Anglian water authority controls the watering of gardens, golf courses and so on.
If there is difficulty in finding water for irrigation, in spite of the importance which I attach to irrigation, as do farmers in Norfolk, the authorities have a duty to provide incentives to farmers to build their own storage facilities. After all, ground water is available during the winter. It should be feasible for those who are involved in farming or horticulture to build storage facilities so that more water is available for irrigation if the effects of drought are to continue in the longer term.
The NRA had distributed a launch-of-options study, which clearly outlines a plan for future water demand management. Indeed, the purpose of my speech is to get across the idea that we need a long-term plan for water demand management and control. The NRA has produced a good report but one aspect of it disturbs me. Unfortunately, I do not have time to quote from the report, but there is constant reference to there being no single solution, to there being no great urgency and to studies taking a great deal of time. That approach concerns me. The message that I want to convey to the NRA through my hon. Friend the Minister, and perhaps in other ways, is that although the study is good, and the ideas set out in it are acceptable, it is unfortunate that it does not highlight a sense of urgency. I therefore make a plea to the NRA to show a greater sense of urgency in its approach to these matters.
If we are to solve the problems that stem from water shortage, assuming that they continue into the future as a result of climate change or population increase, or for


whatever other reason, it is important that people are educated to conserve water by using water-efficient appliances and by encouraging general reductions in consumption. These are the tools that we can use to begin an effective campaign to increase public knowledge. Future home owners should be encouraged to understand the basics of water usage. A long-term conservation campaign should start now. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will have something to say about that, especially as I do not have time to say much about such a campaign.
The Council for the Protection of Rural England and the NRA, in presenting their case for demand management of water supply, have discussed the imbalance in the distribution of available water resources in different parts of the country. In the longer term, I believe that there will need to be inter-regional transfers, even if there is not a national network of pipelines. I have even heard it suggested that when the extra carriageway is built on the A1—an important north-south road—the opportunity should be taken to lay a pipeline. That makes sense. After all, the sort of transfer that I am talking about is common in the Mediterranean and in other areas. Many of us have gone sightseeing in Provence and seen the Pont du Gard and other great works built many years ago. If that could be done then, it can be done now. Long distance water transfer must be considered seriously.
While I am on the subject of major projects that may have to be considered. I would like to mention the Wash barrage. Recent correspondence in the local press has asked why, 20 years ago, we did not grasp the opportunity to build that barrage. Many of our problems of water supply and flood control in Fenland would not be costing us so much now if the requisite investment had been put into the Wash barrage some years ago.
We have an eccentric approach to public finance in this country. It may have something to do with the way in which the Treasury works. We do not seem to be able to spend big money now to save even greater expenditure in the future. I know that my hon. Friend is not in a position to respond to that more general point, but we need to think long term. If large investments are necessary for the long term, we may save ourselves money by making those investments.
The problems in East Anglia and elsewhere are the legacy of a failure to recognise the problems soon enough and to get our strategy for the future right. I hope to be able to persuade my hon. Friend and others responsible that ad hoc responses will not suffice; long-term strategic planning and action are required, in all the ways that I have mentioned in this brief survey. I look forward to my hon. Friend's response, and I thank him once again for being here.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) has done the House a service by raising this subject tonight and setting out the issues with characteristic clarity of thought and balance of argument. I welcome the opportunity to

explain the problems being caused by the current dry spell both throughout the country as a whole and, more particularly, in East Anglia.
The national situation is difficult and is under constant review. Over the last three and a half years rainfall has been below average. Never since records began has a spell of this nature extended beyond two consecutive years. Nineteen eighty nine was the driest year since 1976; and the 13-month period to March 1991 was the third driest this century. The period from November 1988 to January 1992 was the driest for over 200 years in the Anglian region, an area which in average conditions is also the driest in the United Kingdom. Over the last six months, rainfall over England and Wales has been about 35 per cent. below average while the December and January rainfall was the third lowest this century. No one should be in any doubt about the scale of the challenge, therefore.
The situation next summer will be heavily influenced by the amount of rainfall over the next two months. If it is not well above average, eastern and south-east England could face a critical situation. These weather conditions, particularly in the east of England, have brought home the fact that our water is valuable and is a finite resource.
In the Water Act 1989, this Government ensured the proper stewardship of water by appointing a separate body, the National Rivers Authority, with responsibility for judicious management of resources, balancing the demands of users against the need to maintain and enhance the water environment. The NRA has clear and coherent statutory powers. The largest users of water are the water companies which, under the Act and subsequent consolidating legislation, have in their licences responsibility for the adequacy and quality of public water supplies.
What is being done to safeguard the public from the effects of dry weather? It goes without saying that, whatever else the Government can do, they cannot make it rain. If it rains heavily and consistently over the next two months, the problem will become much less widespread. If it does not, we shall be faced with another summer of restrictions and possibly shortages in many southern and eastern areas.
I must re-emphasise the roles of the NRA and the water companies. Under section 19 of the Water Resources Act 1991 The NRA has a duty to conserve, redistribute and otherwise augment water resources in England and Wales while, under section 37 of the Water Industry Act 1991, the companies must develop and maintain an efficient and economical system of water supply in their areas. My Department has a supervisory role over them, but the NRA and the water companies must play the active part by fulfilling their functions.
I have asked officials in my Department shortly to meet officials from the NRA and the water companies to discuss contingency arrangements for the areas most likely to be affected should the worst occur. What form the arrangements will take is as yet difficult to predict. It depends upon a number of factors, not least rainfall. However, I should like to mention some action that has already been taken.
While investment in the water industry declined by 27 per cent. in the last half of the 1970s, it rose by 51 per cent. in the 1980s under Conservative government and the progress made helped to produce an additional 10 gallons of water for every man, woman and child each day. That momentum is accelerating under the privatised regime.
For example, a major reservoir at Roadford in Devon was put into use in 1990. Another at Carsington, near Derby, will yield 49 million gallons per day when completed in 1993. London's water supply into the 21st century will be secured by the construction of the London water ring main, due to be completed by the mid-1990s.
A number of development options for water resources are being explored by water companies to meet local shortfalls and deal with prospective additional regional demands. These include sinking boreholes, the construction of local pipeline transfer schemes and the building of major reservoirs. The NRA has commissioned a study, to be undertaken by Sir William Halcrow and Partners, on the options for a national water resources development plan.
However, a balanced strategy must not lose sight of the importance of conservation. In the short term, and particularly in those areas worst affected by drought, water companies and the NRA have given increasing publicity to the need to use water wisely. The casual user who leaves his or her sprinkler running for hours should be made aware that this can use in one hour at least as much water as an average family uses in one day, without necessarily benefiting his garden.
In the long term, measures such as sophisticated leakage control policies are being pursued by water companies to minimise losses through leaking mains. The Office of Water Services expects suppliers to adopt the most cost-effective control measures so as to lead to the most favourable charges to customers. The director general has made it clear that he will take appropriate action to secure improvements. The NRA would wish to be satisfied that water losses have been minimised before lending support to proposals for the development of new resources.
In times of water shortages, it is important to strike a balance between competing users and the environment. The NRA has recently been liasing with those holding abstraction licences, such as the water companies and farmers in the south-east, where the shortage has been worst. In East Anglia, they are already working to the warning procedures and advice set out in a leaflet published last year.
There are various concepts of what actually constitutes East Anglia, but for the purposes of simplicity I will equate it with the area covered by Anglian Water, the largest water company in England in terms of area. That area is also the flattest and driest. It extends from the southern part of Humberside in the north to the Thames estuary in the south, and covers also most of Northamptonshire and Bedfordshire.
The company area, as I have said, had the lowest rainfall in the country, even in normal times. Over the last six months it has received only 67 per cent. of its average rainfall. It is particularly vulnerable in such times as over half its water supply is from groundwater sources. These

are replenished mainly during the winter months, due to high evaporation in the summer. The current comparatively dry winter is therefore a serious blow to the avoidance of a shortage next summer, when demand will rise with the needs of agriculture and tourism. Groundwater levels are currently very low. Surface reservoir levels vary at present but are generally rather more than half full.
Anglian Water continually updates its contingency arrangements. It has reduced abstractions from depleted aquifers, even where that has entailed moving to sources with higher costs for treatment or pumping. Publicity campaigns using television, newspapers and leaflets have exhorted consumers to save water. Over the last two years, the company has spent nearly £800,000 on high-technology leak detection equipment. Over the same period, it has drilled or re-equipped many boreholes, and improved a number of water treatment works and pumping stations. Further schemes are being accelerated.
I should, perhaps, add that, although three statutory water companies within the area—Three Valleys, Cambridge and Essex—currently have hosepipe bans in force, they, and Anglian Water, felt that they are able to withstand last year's condititions without applying for a drought order.
Lastly, let me return to the question of spray irrigation. The Anglian region is the most intensively farmed and spray-irrigated area in the United Kingdom. Following over-use in 1990, MAFF and the NRA issued a leaflet entitled "Good Irrigation Practice". The leaflet describes simple precautions to avoid wasting water, and gives details of three alerts. An "amber alert" issued by the NRA warns farmers, during prolonged dry weather following periods of low rainfall, that supplies in individual catchment areas are low. A "red alert" follows at least a fortnight later, and imposes a 50 per cent. cut in the annual licensed volume of water on any single abstraction licence. The final stage—during a prolonged drought, when supplies for irrigation fall to environmentally dangerous levels—is the imposition of an indefinite ban on all spray irrigation. The alerts are issued by catchment, and are not wide-area or blanket restrictions.
The situation in the Anglian region is becoming critical and its groundwater sources could suffer from further depletion unless the next six to eight weeks are very wet. We are doing what is necessary to ensure that contingency planning is high on the agenda of all those concerned, so that, if the rain does not materialise, those responsible for water resources management, and consumers among the public and industry, can play their part in minimising the effects.
I welcomed the opportunity of reporting on those issues, afforded to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Eleven o'clock.